Orissa High Court
Land Acquisition Officer vs Ghasiram Mishra & Ors on 9 November, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
L.A.A No.17 of 2018
Land Acquisition Officer, ..... Appellant
Kalahandi
Mr.B. Panigrahi, ASC
Vs.
Ghasiram Mishra & Ors. ..... Respondents
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
09.11.2023
L.A.A No.17 of 2018,
Misc. Case No.17 of 2018 & I.A. No.144 of 2022
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
03.
2. I.A. No.144 of 2022 has been filed for condonation of delay
of 686 days, as pointed out by the Office.
3. As is ascertained from record, though the Appeal was
preferred 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. was filed.
4. It is further revealed from record that on 29.08.2022, ten days
time was granted to remove the defects. However, this I.A. has been
filed beyond the time granted by this Court. Further, delay has not
been properly explained, giving convincing reason to condone the
delay.
5. Similarly, Misc. Case No.17 of 2018 (wrongly shown as
17/2017) was filed on 15.02.2018 praying therein to grant two
months' time to pay the 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 payment 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.
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
