1. Suit for property ownership and permanent injunction — Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution — Restoration application dismissed — Special Leave Petition filed with significant delay. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2020 Supreme(SC) 873
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari, Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.
Deputy Conservator Of Forests - Appellant
Versus
Timblo Irmaos Ltd. & Ors. - Respondents
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 19059/2020
Decided On : 18-12-2020
Advocates appeared:
Mr. Pratap Venugopal, Ms. Surekha Raman, Adv, Mr. Akhil Abraham Roy, Adv, Mr. Vijay Valsan, Adv, for the Appellant.
Mr. Pratap Venugopal, Ms. Surekha Raman, Adv, Mr. Akhil Abraham Roy, Adv, Mr. Vijay Valsan, Adv, for the Appellant.
Points Of Law : Concerned officers responsible for the manner in defending this petition must be made to pay for it.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Aiming ownership rights to property – Condo nation of delay - Respondent filed suit in before Additional Sessions Judge South Goa at against petitioner calming ownership rights to property known as Aforamento Perpeto situated at prayer was made for permanent injunction against petitioner - Suit was contested by petitioner but it appears that the written statement was filed only in year - Suit was ultimately decreed by ADJ - Petitioner filed first appeal against judgment which was admitted by High Court of Bombay at Goa in year.
Finding of the Court :
Court have repeatedly deprecated such attempts State Governments to approach this Court only to complete mere formality - Counsel for petitioner strenuously contends that there is valuable land involved - So then concerned officers responsible for manner in defending petition must be made to pay for it – Court are thus constrained to dismiss the petition as barred by time and impose cost on petitioner for wastage of judicial time – Court put it to the counsel that the cost would have been much greater but for the fact that young counsel is appearing before us and court have given considerable concession in costs on that factor alone.
Result : Petition disposed
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Condonation of delay sought on grounds of counsel's fault and the high value of the property involved. (Para 3 , 8 )
3. Government authorities cannot ignore the statute of limitation; certificate cases filed to shield negligent officers from accountability are deprecated. (Para 1 , 4 , 6 , 8 )
4. Substantial delay by government authorities cannot be condoned by shifting blame to counsel or citing property value when negligence is evident. (Para 3 , 4 , 8 )
5. Special Leave Petition dismissed as time-barred with costs recoverable from the responsible officers. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
6. What are certificate cases in the context of government litigation?
Certificate cases are petitions filed by government authorities primarily to complete a formality and record that the highest court dismissed the appeal, thereby shielding negligent officers from accountability for failing to defend litigation. (Para 1 , 6 )
7. Can government authorities claim a greater leeway regarding the statute of limitation?
No. While greater leeway was previously granted, the current legal position is that government authorities cannot approach courts belatedly as if the statute of limitation does not exist for them. (Para 4 )
8. Is the fault of a counsel sufficient grounds for condoning substantial delay by the State?
No. Substantial delay cannot be condoned by merely shifting blame to the counsel, as parties are required to track their matters and negligence despite numerous opportunities is not excusable. (Para 3 , 7 )
ORDER
1. The special leave petition has been filed after a delay of 462 days. This is one more case which we have categorized as a "certificate cases" filed before this Court to complete a mere formality and save the skin of the officers who have been throughout negligent in defending a litigation!
2. The respondent(s) filed a suit in 1977 before the Additional Sessions Judge, South Goa at Margao against the petitioner calming ownership rights to property known as "Aforamento Perpeto" situated at Verlem of Sanguem Taluka. The prayer was made for permanent injunction against the petitioner. The suit was contested by the petitioner but it appears that the written statement was filed only in the year 1980. The suit was ultimately decreed by the ADJ on 25.08.2003. The petitioner filed a first appeal against the said judgment which was admitted by the High Court of Bombay at Goa in the year 2003. The appeal came up for hearing on 10.02.2014 when fresh notices were issued to the parties. On 07.08.2014 the petitioner was unrepresented by the counsel. Thus the matter was adjourned. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution on 03.09.2014. Despite this mishap, no application for restoration was filed till 05.01.2016 seeking condonation of delay in moving the restoration application. That application was dismissed by the impugned order dated 07.02.2019.
3. A perusal of the impugned order shows that once again a reference has been made, as in similar cases of delay by the State to the judgment of this Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 1353 . A claim was also made that the petitioner should not suffer for the fault of the counsel. The High Court opined that such substantial delay could not be condoned by mere shifting the blame on the counsel as the parties are required to keep track of the matter and there is negligence despite numerous opportunities.
4. We have dealt with the issue of Government authorities in approaching Courts belatedly as if the Statute of Limitation does not exist for them. While referring to some reasons given for insufficiencies, we observed that the parties cannot keep on relying on judicial pronouncements for a period of time when technology had not advanced and a greater leeway was given to the Government, (Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. (supra). This situation no more prevail and this position had been elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 563.
5. These aspects have been analyzed by us recently in SLP (c) No..D. 9217/2020- State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. vs. Bheru Lal decided on 15.10.2020.
6. In the aforesaid judgment we have defined "certificate cases" the objective of which is only to put a quietus to the issue by recording that nothing could be done because the highest Court had dismissed the appeal. We have repeatedly deprecated such practice and process. The irony is that despite observations, no action was ever taken against officers who sit on the file and do nothing.
7. The matter is further aggravated in the present case and even the present petition is filed with a delay of 462 days and once again the excuse is of change of counsel.
8. We have repeatedly deprecated such attempts of the State Governments to approach this Court only to complete a mere formality. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that there is valuable land involved. In our view, if it was so, then the concerned officers responsible for the manner in defending this petition must be made to pay for it.
9. We are thus constrained to dismiss the petition as barred by time and impose cost of Rs.15,000/- on the petitioner for wastage of judicial time. We put it to the learned counsel that the cost would have been much greater but for the fact that a young counsel is appearing before us and we have given considerable concession
