Orissa High Court
Land Acquisition Officer vs Thakur Purohit on 9 November, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
L.A.A No.18 of 2018
Land Acquisition Officer, ..... Appellant
Kalahandi
Mr.B. Panigrahi, ASC
Vs.
Thakur Purohit ..... Respondent
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
09.11.2023
L.A.A No. 18 of 2018,
Misc. Case No.18 of 2018 & I.A. No.145 of 2022
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
03.
2. I.A. No.145 of 2022 has been filed for condonation of delay
of 673 days, as pointed out by the Office.
3. As is ascertained from record, though the appeal was
presented on 16.02.2018, no step was taken till 19.09.2022 for
condonation of delay i.e. the date on which this I.A. has been filed.
4. It is further revealed from record that vide order dated
29.08.2022, ten days' time was granted to remove the defects.
However, the I.A. has been filed beyond the time granted by this
Court. Further, 673 days delay has not been properly explained,
giving convincing reason to condone the delay.
5. Similarly, Misc. Case No.18 of 2018 was filed on 15.02.2018
praying therein to grant two months time for payment of deficit
court fee. The prayer made in the Misc. Case has become
infructuous since long. Till date neither the deficit court fee has
been deposited nor has any further step been taken by the State-
Appellant to ensure deposit of Court Fee.
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 so also non deposit of Court Fee.
9. Since this 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 compliance 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
