Orissa High Court
Land Acquisition Zone Officer vs Pitambar Dehury on 8 November, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
LAA No.108 of 2009
Land Acquisition Zone Officer, ..... Appellant
Mr. B. Panigrahi, Advocate
Vs.
Pitambar Dehury ..... Respondent
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
08.11.2023
I.A. No.69 of 2018 and LAA No.108 of 2009
Order No. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
04.
2. This matter has been listed under the heading "For Orders"
with a noting, requisites for issuance of notice on limitation as
well as Appeal on sole Respondent have not been filed in terms of
Order dated 31.08.2018. As is revealed from the record, the
Appeal was presented on 27.10.2009. Step for condonation of
delay was taken by the State-Appellant only on 12.09.2018 i.e.
after passing of the Order dated 31.08.2018 in this Appeal.
3. It is further revealed from the record that vide Order dated
31.08.2018, the coordinate Bench ordered to take steps for
condonation of delay within a period of one week and thereafter to
issue notice to the Respondent on the question of limitation as
well as the Appeal by Registered Post with A.D. It was further
ordered to file the requisites within two weeks from the said date.
However, the Application on limitation was filed on 12.09.2018,
which is beyond one week from 31.08.2018.
4. That apart, no step has been taken till date by the State-
Appellant to issue notice on the question of limitation as well as
the Appeal on the Respondent in terms of the said Order dated
31.08.2018. As pointed out by the office, there is a delay of 1426
days in preferring the Appeal.
5. 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."
6. 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.
7. Accordingly, the I.A. so also the Appeal stand dismissed for
non-compliance of the Order dated 31.08.2018 so also on the
ground of delay and laches on the part of Appellant.
8. Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this Order to
the referral Court so also the present Respondent (claimant before
the court below).
(S.K. MISHRA)
JUDGE
Signature Padma
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: PADMA CHARAN DASH
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT
Date: 12-Nov-2023 08:36:27
