The State Of Rajasthan vs Smt. Rajul (2026:Rj-Jd:12004-Db)
2026 Latest Caselaw 3824 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

The State Of Rajasthan vs Smt. Rajul (2026:Rj-Jd:12004-Db) on 13 March, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:12004-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR

                   D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 24/2026

1.       The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
         Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2.       Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Rohet,
         District Pali, Rajasthan.
                                                       ----Appellants
                                 Versus
1.       Smt. Rajul W/o Mool Chand, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
         182, Mahaveer Nagar, Pali, District Pali.
2.       Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
         Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhanwa, Tilak Marg, Jaipur
         Through Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial
         Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog
         Bhanwa, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3.       The Senior Regional Manager, Riico, Pali, District Pali.
                                                    ----Respondents

For Appellant(s)             :     None Present
For Respondent(s)            :        -


              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL Order (Oral)

13/03/2026

Per: Arun Monga, J

1. Applicant seeks condonation of delay of 340 days in filing the

accompanied appeal against order and judgment dated 17.05.2022

passed by learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.7026/2022, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ

petition directing the appellant No.2 to comply with the Circular

dated 26.10.2015 issued by the Department of Land Resources,

Ministry of Rural Development, and to re-determine the award of

respondent No.1 by calculating the market value with reference to

the date 01.01.2014, considering the prevailing DLC rates as per

the said circular. For the reasons stated hereinafter, this is not a fit

case where discretion to condone the delay ought to be exercised.

(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 04:48:44 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:12004-DB] (2 of 6) [SAW-24/2026]

2. The explanation for seeking condonation is totally mechanical

and there seems to be no application of mind. No specific details

or day to day explanation have been given as to why the matter

remained pending.

3. For ready reference paras No.1 to 6 of the application are as

below:

"1. That the appellants, through the present Special Appeal, are challenging the validity and propriety of the judgment dated 17.05.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7026/2022 [Smt. Rajul V/s The State of Rajasthan & Ors.], whereby the learned Single Judge has proceeded to allow the writ petition filed by the petitioner-respondent.

2. That it is submitted that the present appeal has been filed after the expiry of the period of limitation as prescribed under the law, and the time period lapsed due to some administrative reasons. In this regard, it is submitted that the Hon'ble Single Judge has decided a bunch of writ petitions vide order dated 17.05.2022 and thereby directed to re- determine the compensation while considering the reference date as advised in communication dated 26.10.2015.

3. That after obtaining the certified copies of the judgment dated 17.05.2022, the same were sent to the department and an opinion was sought from the counsel appearing for the department. After the opinion was given by the counsel for the department for filing of a Special Appeal, the same was sent to Jaipur. An Officer In Charge in the matter was appointed. Thereafter, the Additional Advocate General was appointed in the matter. The entire record of the case was called for filing of the appeal from the department. Thereafter, the appeal has been prepared and the same has been filed without any further delay on the part of the appellants.

4. That some time has lapsed in completing the necessary administrative formalities and for acquiring the complete record in the matter, and thereafter the appeal has been filed without any lapse of time.

5. That in view of the facts stated above, it is clear that all the required bona fide efforts have been made to file the present appeal challenging the order dated 17.05.2022 at the earliest. The delay so caused in filing the present appeal is bona fide and the same is required to be condoned in the interest of justice. It is submitted that the present Special Appeal involves a substantial question of law having a larger impact upon all the acquisition proceedings already undertaken and concluded, and therefore the present appeal requires adjudication on merits. In this view of the matter, it is in the interest of justice that the present appeal may also be heard and disposed of on merits.

6. That in these circumstances, it is submitted that the delay caused in the present case is bona fide and the same should be condoned in securing the ends of justice."

4. The present Special Appeal has been filed after the expiry of

the prescribed period of limitation due to certain administrative (Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 04:48:44 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:12004-DB] (3 of 6) [SAW-24/2026]

reasons, including obtaining certified copies of the judgment,

seeking legal opinion from the counsel appearing for the

department, appointment of the Officer In Charge and the learned

Additional Advocate General, and collection of the complete record

from the department for the purpose of filing the appeal. Some

time was consumed in completing the necessary administrative

formalities and procuring the complete record; however, thereafter

the appeal has been prepared and filed without any further delay

on the part of the appellants.

5. No doubt in deserving case, Courts are liberal to grant

indulgence but instant is not a case of such kind.

6. It is a settled position in law that delay confers crystallized

rights in favour of a litigant by virtue of law of limitation. Delay

and latches since result in freezing of the vested rights in a party,

which seeks enforcement of the same, the said right cannot be

taken away unless there is a sufficient cause shown by the party

seeking condonation of delay.

7. Having gone through the contents of the application under

Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay, it

transpires that not only a completely beaten up stand has been

taken therein justifying the delay in the most mechanical and

nonchalant manner, but, even otherwise, its lacks the necessary

particulars.

8. Qua the law applicable on condonation of delay, reference

may be had to Apex Court judgment in Ramlal and others Vs.

(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 04:48:44 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:12004-DB] (4 of 6) [SAW-24/2026]

Rewa Coalfields Ltd.1 Relevant extract of the same is

reproduced hereinbelow:-

"7. In construing Section 5 it is relevant to bear in mind two important considerations. The first consideration is that the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed for making an appeal gives rise to a right in favour of decree holder to treat the decree as binding between the parties. In other words, when the period of limitation prescribed has expired the decree holder has obtained a benefit under the law of limitation to treat the decree as beyond challenge and this legal right which has accrued to the decree holder by lapse of time should not be light heartedly disturbed. The other consideration which cannot be ignored is that if sufficient cause for excusing delay is shown discretion is given to the Court to condone delay and admit the appeal. This discretion has been deliberately conferred on the Court in order that judicial power and discretion in trial behalf should be exercised to advance substantial justice."

9. Reference may also be had to another Apex Court judgment

in Ajit Singh Thakur Singh v. State of Gujarat,2 wherein it is

observed thus:-

".....it is true that a party is entitled to wait until the last day of limitation for filing an appeal, but when it allows limitation to expire and pleads sufficient cause for not filing the appeal earlier, the sufficient cause must establish that because of some event or circumstance arising before limitation expired it was not possible to file the appeal within time. No event or circumstance arising after the expiry of limitation can constitute such sufficient cause. There may be events or circumstances subsequent to the expiry of limitation which may further delay the filing of the appeal, but that the limitations has been allowed to expire without the appeal being filed must be traced to a cause arising within the period of limitation. In the present case, there was no such cause, and the High Court erred in condoning the delay."

10. In Government of Maharashtra (Water Resource

Department) Vs. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors

Private Limited3. Hon'ble the Supreme Court once again held as

under:-

"59. Likewise, merely because the Government is involved, a different yardstick for condonation of delay cannot be laid down. This was felicitously stated in Postmaster General v. Living Media (India) Ltd.70 "Postmaster General"], as follows: (SCC pp. 573-74. paras 27-29).

27. 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 1 1962 AIR (SC) 361 2 AIR 1981 SC 733 3 2021 SCC OnLine SC 233

(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 04:48:44 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:12004-DB] (5 of 6) [SAW-24/2026]

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.

28. 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 bona fides, 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.

29. 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 bona fide 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 the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few."

11. In another recent Apex Court judgment in Shivamma

(dead) by Lrs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors.4, it is

observed thus:-

"xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

261. Thus, for the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order of the High Court deserves to be set aside. Before we proceed to close this judgment, we deem it appropriate to make it abundantly clear that administrative lethargy and laxity can never stand as a sufficient ground for condonation of delay, and we want to convey an emphatic message to all the High Courts that delays shall not be condoned on frivolous and superficial grounds, until a proper case of sufficient cause is made out, wherein the State-machinery is able to establish that it acted with bona fides and remained vigilant all throughout. Procedure is a handmaid to justice, as is famously said. But courts, and more particularly the constitutional courts, ought not to obviate the procedure for a litigating State agency, who also equally suffer the bars of limitation from pursuing litigations due to its own lackadaisical attitude.

262. The High Courts ought not give a legitimizing effect to such callous attitude of State authorities or its instrumentalities, and should remain extra cautious, if the party seeking condonation of delay is a State-authority. They should not become surrogates for 4 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969

(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 04:48:44 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:12004-DB] (6 of 6) [SAW-24/2026]

State laxity and lethargy. The constitutional courts ought to be cognizant of the apathy and pangs of a private litigant. Litigants cannot be placed in situations of perpetual litigations, wherein the fruits of their decrees or favourable orders are frustrated at later stages. We are at pains to reiterate this everlasting trend, and put all the High Courts to notice, not to reopen matters with inordinate delay, until sufficient cause exists, as by doing so the courts only add insult to the injury, more particularly in appeals under Section 100 of the CPC, wherein its jurisdiction is already limited to questions of law.

263. Limitation periods are prescribed to maintain a sweeping scope for the lis to attain for finality. More than the importance of judicial time, what worries us is the plight of a litigant with limited means, who is to contest against an enormous State, and its elaborate and never-exhausting paraphernalia. Such litigations deserve to be disposed of at the very threshold, because, say if a party litigating against the State, for whatever reason, is unable to contest the condonation of delay in appeal, unlike the present case, it reopens the lis for another round of litigation, and leaves such litigant listless yet again. As courts of conscience, it is our obligation that we assure that a litigant is not sent from pillar to post to seek justice.

264. No litigant should be permitted to be so lethargic and apathetic, much less be permitted by the courts to misuse the process of law."

12. Aforesaid position in law dissuades us to grant any judicial

latitude to the appellant/State.

12. In the premise, since the appeal is not maintainable on the

ground of delay, no ground to hear the main appeal on merits is

made out.

13. Both, the application for condonation of delay as well as

main appeal are dismissed.

14. All pending application(s) shall also stand disposed of.

                                   (SUNIL BENIWAL),J                                               (ARUN MONGA),J
                                    40-Devanshi/-




                                                            (Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 04:48:44 PM)




Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)