A party seeking to condone delay in appeals must demonstrate sufficient cause, which cannot rely on bureaucratic inefficiency or negligence.

JUDGMENT :

S.G. PANDIT, J.

1. The above batch of appeals are filed under Section 37 (1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, For short ‘Act, 1996’ by the National Highway Authority of India, For short ‘NHAI’, questioning the common judgment dated 2.3.2023 passed in Arbitration Petition Nos.72, 73 & 74 of 2022, on the file of learned Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, whereunder the appellants’ challenge to the awards dated 12.01.2022 passed by the learned Arbitrator/Deputy Commissioner, Haveri in LAQ/ARBT/NH/CR/No.185/2004-05, LAQ/ARBT/NH/CR/No.77/2004-05, LAQ/ARBT/NH/CR/No.79/2004-05 and LAQ/ARBT/NH/CR/No.186/2004-05, is rejected by confirming the said awards.

2. Along with the above appeals, IA No.1/2025 is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 praying to condone the delay of 441 days in preferring the appeals.

3. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Sagar Ladda for the appellants in all the above appeals, learned counsel Sri. S.N. Banakar for respondent No.1 as well as Smt. Kirti Lata Patil, learned HCGP for respondent No.2/State on IA No.1/2025.

4. Learned counsel Sri. Sagar Ladda for the appellants/NHAI would submit that impugned common judgment was passed on 2.3.2023 and the present appeals were filed before this Court on 14.08.2024. He submits that there is delay of 441 days, which is not deliberate and as the delay is bonafide, he prays for condoning the delay in preferring the appeals. Learned counsel would submit that there are number of connected/identical matters, which made it difficult for the appellants to keep a track at all times. Further, learned counsel would submit that the appellants are the government public exchequer authorities, who are dealing with hundreds of such matters on a daily basis. As such, he submits that the delay in approaching this Court is the result of handling such excessive matters among other reasons. However, he submits that mere reason of delay cannot be a ground to reject the appeals, since the impugned judgments would have far reaching implications on the public exchequer.

5. Per contra, learned counsel Sri. S.N. Banakar for respondent No.1 would submit that there is inordinate delay of 441 days in approaching this Court by NHAI and in the affidavit accompanying the application for condonation of delay, no acceptable reasons are forthcoming to condone the delay. He submits that there is no bonafide and as there is no acceptable cause is shown, IA No.1/2025 requires to be rejected, consequently appeals also.

6. Learned counsel Sri. S.N. Banakar would further submit that the acquisition proceedings under NHAI were commenced by issuing preliminary notification dated 19.3.2001 and final notification dated 3.1.2002, until this date, the claimant has not received entire compensation. Learned counsel referring to the objections filed to IA No.1/2025, prays for dismissal of IA No.1/2025 for condonation of delay.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the affidavit accompanying the application (IA No.1/2025) for condonation of delay as well as objections filed opposing the said IA, the only question, which falls for consideration is, whether the appellants have shown sufficient cause for condoning the inordinate delay of 441 days in preferring the appeals filed under Section 37 (1) of the Act, 1996.

8. Answer to the above point would be in the “negative” for the following reasons:

9. The first respondent’s lands were acquired for formation of national highway by issuing preliminary notification under Section 3 (A) of the National Highways Act, 1956, For short, ‘NH Act’, dated 19.3.2001 and final notification under (D) of the NH Act, dated 3.1.2002. The award determining the compensation in respect of acquired lands was passed on 28.8.2004, fixing the market value for non-agricultural land at Rs.47.33/- per sq.mtr. Not being satisfied with the market value determined in the award, the 1^st respondent-land loser preferred reference before the