Orissa High Court
State Of Orissa vs Bharata Dehury And Others on 10 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
LAA No.128 of 2009
State of Orissa ..... Appellant
Mr. G. Rout, Adv.
Vs.
Bharata Dehury and others ..... Respondents
Mrs. J. Nayak, Adv.
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
10.01.2023
Misc. Case No.03 of 2010 and LAA No.128 of 2009
Order No. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
11.
2. Though the Appeal was filed on 26.11.2009, but the
application for condonation of delay was filed on 06.01.2010 for
condoning the delay of 371 days. However, as per the office note,
the delay pointed out by the Stamp Reporter is 373 days.
3. Being noticed, the respondents have filed their Objection to
the application for condonation of delay opposing to the prayer
made in the Misc. Case on the ground that the stand taken by the
Appellant for condonation of delay is false and frivolous and the
Appellant-State has not approached this Court with due diligence
and the grounds taken in the application for limitation are not
good grounds. Hence, it has been prayed to dismiss both the
limitation application as well as the Memorandum of Appeal with
heavy cost.
4. Heard learned Counsel for the Parties.
5. Mr. Rout, learned Counsel for the State-Appellant submits
that the delay caused in filing the Appeal is due to time taken by
the observance of official procedure and same is neither
intentional nor deliberate. He further submits that material on
record has not been taken into consideration by the Court below
while adjudicating the reference. Thus, Mr. Rout submits that the
delay should not stand in the way for dismissal of the Appeal on
merit. It is further submitted that the impugned award is
exaggerated and requires interference of this Court. Hence, the
application for condonation of delay should be allowed and
Appeal be heard on merit.
Mrs. J. Nayak, learned Counsel for the Respondents, on the
other hand, submits that the time consumed in filing the Appeal
cannot be a ground to condone the delay in view of the judgment
of the Apex Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General &
Ors. Vrs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. reported in (2012) 3
SCC 563 and further submits that inordinate delay has been
caused by the State in filing of the Appeal and on the plea of
observance of official procedure, the application needs no
consideration. Thus, she prays for dismissal of the Misc. Case, so
also Appeal.
6. Basing on the pleadings and evidence on record, the Court
below, while adjudicating the reference, allowed the L.A. Misc.
Case No.137 of 2007 on contest, but without cost and market price
of the case land (Sarada-III Kissam) was determined and fixed at
Rs.70,000/- only per acre with an observation that the
Respondents are entitled to the enhanced compensation
accordingly together with all statutory benefits, including that as
provided under Section 28 of the Act, whereby enhanced the
compensation amount from Rs.52,500/- per acre to Rs.70,000/-
per acre.
7. The apex Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General
(supra) observed as under:
"12) It is not in dispute that the person(s)
concerned were well aware or conversant with the
issues involved including the prescribed period of
limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing
a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot
claim that they have a separate period of limitation
when the Department was possessed with
competent persons familiar with court proceedings.
In the absence of plausible and acceptable
explanation, we are posing a question why the
delay is to be condoned mechanically merely
because the Government or a wing of the
Government is a party before us.
Though we are conscious of the fact that in a
matter of condonation of delay when there was no
gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of
bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to
advance substantial justice, we are of the view that
in the facts and circumstances, the Department
cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions.
The claim on account of impersonal machinery and
inherited bureaucratic methodology of making
several notes cannot be accepted in view of the
modern technologies being used and available. The
law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody
including the Government.
13) In our view, it is the right time to inform all the
government bodies, their agencies and
instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable
and acceptable explanation for the delay and there
was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the
usual explanation that the file was kept pending for
several months/years due to considerable degree of
procedural red tape in the process. The government
departments are under a special obligation to
ensure that they perform their duties with diligence
and commitment. Condonation of delay is an
exception and should not be used as an anticipated
benefit for government departments. The law
shelters everyone under the same light and should
not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering
the fact that there was no proper explanation
offered by the Department for the delay except
mentioning of various dates, according to us, the
Department has miserably failed to give any
acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to
condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the
appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of
delay."
8. Also, in view of the recent judgment/order of this Court in
the case of State of Odisha Vrs. Surama Manjari Das (W.P.(C)
No.15763 of 2021 dismissed on 16.07.2021), which has been
passed relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vrs. Bherulal, reported in 2020
SCC Online SC 849, this Appeal deserves to be dismissed on the
ground of delay and laches.
9. Accordingly, the Misc. Case as well as Appeal stand
dismissed. The awarded amount shall be released in favour of the
claimants within a period of three months from the date of
production of certified copy of this Order on proper application
after adjusting the amount already paid, if any, to the claimants
towards compensation on proper application.
(S.K. MISHRA)
JUDGE
Padma
