Orissa High Court
State Of Orissa vs Chitrabhanu Singh on 9 November, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
L.A.A No.90 of 2009
State of Orissa ..... Appellant
Mr. B. Panigrahi, ASC
Vs.
Chitrabhanu Singh ..... Respondent
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
09.11.2023
I.A. No.72 of 2018 & LAA No.90 of 2009
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
04.
2. Mr. B. Panigrahi, learned ASC is present.
3. Though this is an Appeal of the year 2009, on being directed
vide order dated 31.08.2018, the I.A. for condonation of delay was
filed only on 12.09.2018. Thereafter it was never moved by the State
Appellant for listing of this matter.
4. As per the office note, there is a delay of 258 days in
preferring the present Appeal. The reasons indicated in the I.A.
explaining the delay in preferring the Appeal is not convincing. That
apart, the delay has not been properly explained. Further, though the
Application for condonation of delay is pending since 2018, no step
was taken by the State-Appellants to expedite disposal of the said
I.A.
5. That apart, on perusal of the impugned award, it is ascertained
from Paragraph 8 that the amount of compensation was enhanced in
favour of the present Respondent in view of the admission of
O.P.W.1 during his cross-examination that in other similar cases,
compensation paid to the land outstees of the concerned village was
at a higher rate and the present Respondent was paid less amount of
compensation. Hence, he is entitled to get higher compensation at
least at the rate, as was being paid to others.
6. The apex Court in the case of Office of the Chief Post Master
General & Ors. Vrs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. reported in
(2012) 3 SCC 563 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."
7. 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 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.
8. Accordingly, I.A. as well as Appeal preferred under Section
54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, stand dismissed on the
ground of delay and laches.
9. Since the appeal stands dismissed before noticing the private
Respondent, the Registry is directed to communicate this order to
the referral court as well as to the private Respondent, enabling him
to take necessary steps for implementation of the award impugned in
the present Appeal.
(S.K.MISHRA)
JUDGE
Banita
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI
Designation: JR. STENOGRAPHER
Reason: AUTHENTICATION
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 10-Nov-2023 17:51:25
