Telangana High Court

The Mandal Revenue Officer Tahsildar vs Nalkur Sripad Rao Died on 21 November, 2023

      THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                         AND
     THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

                          I.A.No.1 of 2022
                              In/And
                     WRIT APPEAL No.13 of 2022

COMMON JUDGMENT:

(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)

Mr. Parsa Ananth Nageshwar Rao, learned Government Pleader

attached to the office of learned Advocate General for the appellant.

Mr. A. Sudarshan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel represents

Mr. M. Krian Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Mr. D. Ranganatha Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

2. This intra court appeal has been filed against the order dated

04.04.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge by which W.P.No.21085

of 2007 preferred by respondent Nos.1 and 2 has been allowed.

3. I.A.No.1 of 2022 is filed seeking condonation of delay of 1543

days in presenting the appeal.

4. Learned Government Pleader for the appellant has submitted that

the appeal could not be filed within the limitation as the records of the

case were missing and therefore, the appeal has been filed on 28.07.2021.

It is further submitted that in this appeal filed by the State Government ::2::

the delay caused in filing the appeal deserves to be considered liberally.

In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on the

decisions of the Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan vs.

M.Krishnamurthy 1, B.T. Purushothama Rai vs. K.G. Uthaya and

others 2, Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of

Raghunathpur Nafa Academy and others 3, Bhivchandra Shankar

More vs. Balu Gangaram More and others 4, Babulal Vardharji

Gurjar vs. Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries Private Limited and

another 5 and Sheo Raj Singh (deceased) through LRs and others vs.

Union of India and another 6. Learned Government Pleader has referred

to paras 4 and 7 of I.A.No.1 of 2022 as well as para 7 of the additional

affidavit filed in support of the application filed for condonation of delay.

5. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos.1

and 2 has submitted that no explanation has been given in the affidavit

filed in support of I.A.No.1 of 2022 filed for condonation of delay as well

as in the additional affidavit filed in support of the aforesaid application.

It is further submitted that law of limitation binds on everyone, including

(1998) 7 SCC 123

(2013) 14 SCC 86

(2013) 12 SCC 649

(2019) 6 SCC 387

(2020) 15 SCC 1

(2023) SCC Online SC 1278 ::3::

the State Government. It is also submitted that the delay can be condoned

provided sufficient cause is shown.

6. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed

on the decision of the Supreme Court in Postmaster General and others

vs. Living Media India Limited and another 7.

7. We have considered the rival submissions made on both sides and

have perused the record.

8. It is the cardinal principle of law that expression "sufficient cause"

should receive liberal consideration so as to advance the cause of justice.

However, the fact remains that sufficient cause should be indicated to

justify the delay and in the absence of any explanation, the delay cannot

be condoned.

9. A three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in University of Delhi

vs. Union of India and others 8 in para 23 has held as under:

"From a consideration of the view taken by this Court through the decisions cited supra the position is clear that, by and large, a liberal approach is to be taken in the matter of condonation of delay. The consideration for condonation of delay would not depend on the status of

(2012) 3 SCC 563

(2020) 13 SCC 745 ::4::

the party, namely, the Government or the public bodies so as to apply a different yardstick but the ultimate consideration should be to render even-handed justice to the parties. Even in such case the condonation of long delay should not be automatic since the accrued right or the adverse consequence to the opposite party is also to be kept in perspective. In that background while considering condonation of delay, the routine explanation would not be enough but it should be in the nature of indicating "sufficient cause" to justify the delay which will depend on the backdrop of each case and will have to be weighed carefully by the Courts based on the fact situation. In Katij((1987) 2 SCC 107) the entire conspectus relating to condonation of delay has been kept in focus. However, what cannot also be lost sight of is that the consideration therein was in the background of dismissal of the application seeking condonation of delay in a case where there was delay of four days pitted against the consideration that was required to be made on merits regarding the upward revision of compensation amounting to 800%."

Thereafter, in para 31 it has been held that in the matter of

condonation of delay and laches, the well-accepted position is that the

accrued right of the opposite party cannot be lightly dealt with.

10. The aforesaid decision in University of Delhi (supra) was

considered in Sheo Raj Singh (supra), wherein, the Supreme Court

while dealing with an order of High Court condoning the delay has held

in para 36 as under:

"36. We can also profitably refer to Koting Lamkang (supra), cited by Mr. Sen, where the same Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of this Court ::5::

which decided University of Delhi (supra) was of the view that the impersonal nature of the State's functioning should be given due regard, while ensuring that individual defaults are not nit-picked at the cost of collective interest. The relevant paragraphs read as follows:

"7. But while concluding as above, it was necessary for the Court to also be conscious of the bureaucratic delay and the slow pace in reaching a Government decision and the routine way of deciding whether the State should prefer an appeal against a judgment adverse to it. Even while observing that the law of limitation would harshly affect the party, the Court felt that the delay in the appeal filed by the State, should not be condoned.

8. Regard should be had in similar such circumstances to the impersonal nature of the Government's functioning where individual officers may fail to act responsibly. This in turn, would result in injustice to the institutional interest of the State. If the appeal filed by the State are lost for individual default, those who are at fault, will not usually be individually affected."

(underlining ours, for emphasis)"

11. However, as stated supra, there has to be sufficient cause to show

that the same can be considered liberally and the delay can be condoned.

In the instant case, admittedly the order passed by the learned Single

Judge was passed after hearing the appellant on 04.04.2017. Thereafter,

the limitation for filing the appeal expires on 04.05.2017. It is also not in

dispute that on 21.06.2017, the Tahsildar wrote communication to the

Government Pleader to file an appeal. Thereafter, the writ petitioners ::6::

submitted representations on 10.01.2018, 24.07.2019, 14.09.2019 and

28.10.2019 and also submitted a representation to the Joint Collector on

14.09.2019. Thereafter, a legal notice was also sent on 29.06.2020.

Thus, the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 04.04.2017 was

well within the knowledge of the appellant. It is not the case of the

appellant that he was not aware about the order dated 04.04.2017 passed

by the learned Single Judge. Thereafter, this appeal has been filed on

28.07.2021 with an inordinate delay of 1543 days i.e., nearly four years,

two months and 22 days for which no explanation has been offered.

12. We have carefully gone through paragraphs 4 and 7 of the affidavit

filed in support of I.A.No.1 of 2022 as well as para 7 of the additional

affidavit to which reference has been made by the learned Government

Pleader.

13. The aforesaid paragraphs could not disclose as to when the

record of the case was misplaced and when it was recovered. There is no