Nanda Bhoi vs The Commissioner Consolidation
2023 Latest Caselaw 3813 Ori

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                   W.A. No.1742 of 2022

             Nanda Bhoi                                  ....          Appellant
                                  M/s. T. Panigrahi and Associates, Advocates
                                          -versus-
             The Commissioner Consolidation,      ....       Respondents
             Odisha, Bhubaneswar and Others
                            Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Advocate

                         CORAM:
                         THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                         JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
                                           ORDER

19.04.2023 Order No.

02. 1. This writ appeal is directed against an order dated 2nd December, 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.(C) No.32336 of 2022 filed by the present Appellant on the ground of extraordinary delay and laches of seven years in filing the writ petition.

2. The order challenged in the writ petition was passed on 17th April, 2015 by the Commissioner Consolidation, Odisha in Revision Petition No.318 of 2012. The writ petition was filed on 28th November, 2022 accompanied by an application, I.A. No.16385 of 2022, for condonation of delay. The application itself is only of two paragraphs. Para 1 of the said application, which offers the explanation for the delay of seven years, reads as under:

"1. That, the order of commissioner was passed on dated 17.4.2015 and certified copy was received on dated 4.7.2015 although application was moved on

dated 11.7.2015 and petitioner being a illiterate poor S.C. person could not file writ within the time limit.

Mean while Pandemic Corona attracted on dated 23.3.2020 continued upto month of Feb, 2022 and then he also contacted his advocate thereafter and at last move the case on dated 28.11.2022. So the sufficient cause as shown sub serves the ends of justice."

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Land Acquisition, Collector, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji AIR 1987 SC 1353 to urge that in cases concerning land disputes, a liberal approach has to be adopted by the Court on the question of delay.

4. The Court finds the only explanation offered is that the Appellant belong to the Scheduled Caste, was poor and illiterate and, therefore, could not file the writ petition 'within time'. The explanation offered in para 1 of the application, as extracted hereinbefore, is neither convincing nor reasonable. The Corona period started nearly five years after the impugned order was passed by the Commissioner Consolidation, Odisha and, therefore, there had to be some convincing explanation the delay of over five years at least in filing the writ petition. Merely stating that the Appellant was poor and, therefore, could not file it within time, is indeed not a convincing explanation by any standard. Clearly on the Appellant's own showing, he had received a certified copy of the impugned order on 4th July, 2015 itself. Some attempt had to be made to explain, if not every day's delay, then at least every month's or year's delay in filing the writ petition. No such explanation is forthcoming.

5. Consequently, the Court is unable to find any error in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge rejecting the Appellant's writ petition on the ground of delay. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

(G. Satapathy) Judge Subhasmita