Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha vs Chandramani Behera & Ors on 8 November, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
LAA No.35 of 2010
State of Odisha .... Appellant
Mrs. U. Padhi, ASC
-versus-
Chandramani Behera & ors. .... Respondents
Mrs. S. Nanda, Advocate
(for Res Nos.1-7)
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
08.11.2024
LAA No.35 of 2010 &
Misc. Case No.102 of 2010
Order No.
20. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant so also learned
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 7 are present.
3. As per the Tracking report available on record, notice
on Respondent No.8(g) was duly delivered on 06.09.2024.
However, the said Respondent goes unrepresented when
the matter is called.
4. Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 7
submits, she has no instruction yet to represent the LRs of
deceased Respondent No.8(g).
5. This Appeal has been preferred against the judgment
dated 01.11.2007, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Keonjhar in L.A. Ref. No.14 of 2005.
6. As it seems from record, though the appeal was
presented on 18.03.2010 by the State-Appellant, Misc.
Case No.102 of 2010 for condonation of delay was filed on
30.04.2010.
7. As per the office note, there is a delay of 778 days in
filing the present Appeal. The reasons indicated in the
Misc. Case for delay in preferring the Appeal are not
convincing. That apart, the delay has not been properly
explained. Further, though the Application for condonation
of delay is pending since 2010, no step was taken by the
State-Appellant to expedite the process of disposal of the
said petition.
8. 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."
9. Also, in view of the judgment 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.
10. Accordingly, Misc. Case as well as Appeal preferred
under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, stand
dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
11. The State-Appellant is directed to implement the
judgment dated 01.11.2007, passed by the Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Keonjhar in L.A. Ref. No.14 of 2005
within a period of four months hence.
12. Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this
order to the Court below as well as the Private
Respondents.
(S. K. MISHRA)
JUDGE
Banita
Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 08-Nov-2024 17:49:12
