Justice Satyen Vaidya, while dismissing the application for condonation of delay, noted that the Limitation Act is equally applicable to everyone including the government and the government cannot be permitted to approach the court without showing any sufficient cause and bona fide intention behind the delay.
Brief Facts
The state of Himachal Pradesh acquired land in the district Bilaspur, H.P. for the construction of the Namhol-Bahafurpur road. A notification was issued as per section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in different newspapers. The Land Acquisition Collector offered the market value of the acquired land at different rates as per the specification of the land.
The respondents then preferred different reference petitions against the assessment offered by the Land Acquisition Collector which was registered by the reference court and through a common order dated 05.05.2021, all the reference petitions were decided and an enhancement of a uniform rate of Rs. 35,000/- per biswa of the compensation was directed.
The applicants want to challenge the order dated 05.05.2021 as passed by the reference Court, but they have not been able to file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation and hence, delay in filing the appeals has been prayed to be condoned by way of the instant applications.
Contentions of the Applicants:
The applicants have contended that there was a delay in obtaining the certified copy of the award as well as other documents and files, due to which there has been a delay of 367 days and this delay is neither intentional nor willful.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The respondents have contended that the applicants have failed to show any cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. They have also pointed out specific periods in the timeline mentioned by the applicants for which no explanation of the delay has been provided. They have specifically mentioned that there is no explanation for the delay from the date of preparation of the final draft to the date when the file was allegedly sent to the office of the Advocate General for filing of the appeal.
Observations of the Court:
The Court pointed out that the conduct of the applicants has been reckless and negligent in dealing with the matters having serious repercussions. The entire approach of the applicants was termed as lackadaisical.
It was further noted that the prayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeal can only be allowed if the court is satisfied that the deal has been caused by sufficient reasons and that such delays are bona fide. However, in the current case, the applicants have failed to show any cause and not just sufficient cause.
The Court then explained that the rigors of the Limitation Act are equally applicable to all including the Government and the sufficiency of a cause for condonation of delay can be assessed as per the facts and circumstances of every case in hand. In the current case, applicants have not been able to assign any reason whatsoever for the delay in filing the appeal. The court also specifically mentioned that undue laxity of government officials needs the strongest depreciation. Then it was noted that the law has an equal balance for all and even though some leeway is permissible in the case of the government, the same cannot be construed as an absolute license to flout the law at whims.
The prayer of the applicant that Section 5 of the Limitation Act must be interpreted liberally was also rejected and it was noted that liberal interpretation does not mean that the party can be allowed to approach the court at any time without showing any cause.
The Decision of the Court
The applications were dismissed as no merit was found.
Case Title: State of H.P. & Others v. Kanshi Ram (deceased) through his LRs Raj Kumar & Others.
Coram: Justice Satyen Vaidya
Case No.: CMP(M) No. 1255 of 2022 a/w connected mattes
Advocate for the Applicants: Mr. I.N. Mehta, Senior Additional appellants Advocate General with Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General.
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the respondents in all the applications except CMP(M) No.1229 of 2022
Mr. Hriday Ram, Advocate for the respondents in CMP (M) No. 1229 of 2022
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
