Orissa High Court
Laxmikanta Sahu vs Special Land Acquisition on 8 November, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
LAA No.65 of 2017
Laxmikanta Sahu ..... Appellant
Mr. B. Panigrahi, Advocate
Vs.
Special Land Acquisition ..... Respondent
Officer, Khariar
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
08.11.2023
Misc. Case No.108 of 2017
Order No. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
02.
2. Though this Misc. Case has been filed to grant three months
time for payment of deficit Court fee, as per noting, the deficit
Court fee has already been paid in the meantime, which be
accepted.
3. Accordingly, the Misc. Case stands disposed of.
(S.K. MISHRA)
JUDGE
I.A. No.26 of 2018 and L.A.A No.65 of 2017
03. As per the office note, there is a delay of 1300 days in
preferring the present Appeal. As is ascertained from the pleadings
made in the I.A., the delay has not been properly explained.
2. 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."
3. Also, in view of the 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 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.
4. Accordingly, the I.A. so also Appeal stand dismissed.
(S.K. MISHRA)
JUDGE
padma
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: PADMA CHARAN DASH
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT
Date: 12-Nov-2023 08:36:28
