State Of Orissa vs Late @ Lata Sahoo & Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 808 Ori

Orissa High Court

State Of Orissa vs Late @ Lata Sahoo & Others on 2 July, 2025

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                               LAA No.20 of 2011

                 State of Orissa                     ....           Appellant

                                                           Mrs. U. Padhi, ASC


                                      -versus-
                 Late @ Lata Sahoo & others          ....        Respondents

                                                    Mr. N. Panda, Advocate
                                      (For Res. Nos.2(a) to 2(c) and 5,6 & 7)
                                               Mr. A. K. Mohanty, Advocate
                                                    (For Res. No.5(a) to 5(g))

                    CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

                                      ORDER

03.07.2025 Order No. LAA No.20 of 2011 & Misc. Case No.102 of 2011

20. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. In view of the office note, notice on the Respondent No.2(f) on limitation is held to be sufficient. So far as Respondent No.2(e), as p[er the office note, the notice has returned unserved with a noting ".........................". Learned Counsel for the State-Appellant submits that the address furnished is in terms of the address communicated by the concerned officer of the State Government. She further submits that Respondent No.2(e) is related to Respondent nos.2(a) and 2(c) and 5,6 & 7, who have already appeared in this case. Hence, notice on Respondent No.2(e) is also held to be sufficient.

3. This Misc. Case has been filed for condonation of delay of 331 days as pointed out by the Stamp Reporter.

4. Learned Counsel for the private Respondent No.5(a) to 5(h) so also counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 & 7 have filed their respective objections opposing to such prayer for condonation of delay on the ground that delay has not been properly explained.

5. That apart, it is ascertained from the memorandum of appeal that the differential amount of enhanced compensation is only Rs.37000/-, for which court fee of Rs.2414.25 paise has been paid by the State-Appellant. However, on perusal of the I.A. for condonation of delay, it is found that the delay has not been properly explained. That apart, the reasons assigned in the I.A. is also not convincing.

6. The Supreme Court in 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 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 was passed relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in 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, 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.

9. In view of the dismissal of the Appeal, the State- Appellant is directed to implement the judgment dated 15.05.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (S.D), Kamakhyanagar in L.A. Misc. Case No.03 of 2009 within a period of three months hence.

10. Urgent certified copy..............................

(S. K. MISHRA) JUDGE Mona

Location: High Court of Orissa