Orissa High Court
Special Land Acquisition R vs Duryadhan Sandha on 14 November, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
L.A.A No.67 of 2022
Special Land Acquisition R .... Appellant
& R Officer, Rengali
Irrigation Project, Sukinda,
Jajpur
Mr. B. Panigrahi,
Additional Standing Counsel
-versus-
Duryadhan Sandha .... Respondent
Mr. K. Nayak,
Advocate
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
Order No.
14.11.2023
L.A.A. No.67 of 2022 &
I.A. No.133 of 2023
07. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. B. Panigrahi, learned Additional Standing
Counsel for the State/Appellant so also Mr. K.K. Nayak, learned
Counsel for the Respondent.
3. This I.A. is the outcome of the I.A. No.208 of 2022 filed by
the Appellant for condonation of delay. Vide order dated
05.10.2023, the Appellant was permitted to withdraw I.A.
No.208 of 2022 for condonation of delay with liberty to file a
fresh application with better particulars.
4. In the present I.A., a stand has been taken by the
State/Appellant that after excluding the period of limitation in
terms of the order of apex Court from the period from 15th
March, 2020 till 28th February, 2022 and further period of 90
days if calculated w.e.f. 1st March, 2022 and excluded, as the
Appeal was preferred on 14.11.2022 (wrongly typed as
11.11.2023 in the I.A.), there is delay of 165 days in preferring
the present Appeal.
5. Mr. Nayak, learned Counsel for the Respondent, drawing
attention of this Court to the objection filed in response to the
I.A. for condonation of delay filed by the State/Appellant
submits, even in terms of the order of the apex Court, the delay
is condoned, there is further delay of 165 days, which has not
been explained in the I.A. Relying on the judgment of the apex
Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vrs.
Living Media India Ltd. & Anr., reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563,
he further submits, law is well settled that each days has to be
explained.
6. In response to the said submission made by the learned
Counsel for the Respondent, Mr. Panigrahi, concedes before this
Court that despite granting opportunity to file better application
with better particulars to condone the delay, the said period of
165 days beyond the period of limitation to be condoned in
terms of the order of apex Court, has not been explained.
7. The apex Court in the case of 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."
8. 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) and in the case of
State of Odisha and another Vs. Sumitra Das and others
(W.P.(C) No.10122 of 2021) which have 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.
9. 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.
Prasant (S. K. MISHRA)
JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN
Designation: Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 15-Nov-2023 13:41:14
