Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rajani Dubey, Amitendra Kishore Prasad, JJ.
State of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Omlata Agarwal, W/o Sitaram Agrawal - Respondent
FAM No. 9 of 2024
Decided On : 03-09-2024
(A) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 74 – Condonation of delay in filing appeal – Application for condonation of delay dismissed as the appeal was filed beyond the permissible period of 120 days without satisfactory explanation – The court emphasized that the government must adhere to the same standards of diligence as private parties in legal proceedings. (Paras 15, 16)
Facts of the case: The appellant sought to condone a delay of approximately 9 months in filing an appeal against an award passed by the Tribunal on 17.04.2023, citing bureaucratic procedures for obtaining sanction as the reason for the delay.
Findings of Court: The court found that the delay was not justified and dismissed the application for condonation of delay, leading to the dismissal of the appeal itself.
Issues: The main issue was whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned given the lack of a satisfactory explanation for the delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the appeal could not be entertained as it was filed beyond the 120-day limit set by Section 74 of the Act, and emphasized that government bodies must provide reasonable explanations for delays just like any other litigant.
Result: Application for condonation of delay dismissed; appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Rajani Dubey, J.
Heard.
1.The appellant filed application (I.A. No. 01/2024), application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2.Mr. R.N. Pusty, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant/plaintiff has preferred the First Appeal under Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 against the judgment & decree dated 17/04/2023 passed by the learned Tribunal. After passing the impugned award dated 17/04/2023, the Under Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Mantralya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar [CG] vide its letter 01/12/2023, sought permission / sanction to file the instant appeal from the Secretary, Department of Law & Legislative Affairs, Raipur & Secretary, Department of Revenue, Raipur and thereafter sanction was given to file the instant appeal and Officer Incharge of the case was appointed on 01/03/2024. Thereafter, the concerned Officer In-charge of the case made all possible efforts to collect the requisite documents which were required for filing the instant appeal which took some time. Therefore, there is no willful intention to cause delay in the matter but due to requirement of permission which involves various departmental formalities and, therefore, the appeal could not be filed within time.
Though sincere efforts were made by the revenue authorities to avoid delay but in spite of that, the delay could not be avoided and the same is bonafide. There is no deliberate lapse on the part of authorities but due to procedures involved, the delay has caused. He further submits that the State is a multi- functioning body and it has to follow the rules of obtaining sanction etc. for filing an appeal, therefore, it took some time for the State to obtain sanction etc. from the highest authorities of the State for preferring this appeal. The delay caused in filing the instant appeal may kindly be condoned on the basis of principles as laid down in case of "State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok Ao and others" reported in (2005) 3 SCC 752.
3.Learned counsel for the respondent strongly opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the appellant has filed the instant appeal under Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.04.2023. The appeal has been filed on 12.03.2024 and there is a delay of near about 9 months in filing the appeal. No proper and satisfactory explanation has been given for the delay caused in filing the appeal. The State Government took almost 9 months' time to decide whether this appeal has to be filed or not? The only reason assigned for delay in filing the appeal has been narrated in para 3 of the application.
He further submits that from bare perusal of the averments made in para 3 of the application, it appears that the secretary of the department sought permission to file the appeal, after 8 months. The first letter dated 01.12.2023 itself shows that the steps were taken after near about 8 months and no explanation was given for the delay between 17.04.2023 and 01.12.2023. The award was passed on 07.06.2017 thereafter the claim of the respondent was allowed on 17.04.2023 and near about 7 years have already been lapsed in between. The reasons assigned in the application appear to be vague. Therefore, in absence of any sufficient cause, the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal deserves to be rejected.
4. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board vs. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission and others; (2010) 5 SCC 23, Central Electricity Regulatory Commission Vs. M/s Techno Electric and Engineering Company Ltd & Ors.; 2023 LawSuit (SC) 265, order passed by High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in the matter of State of Kerala Vs. Ko
The court held that appeals filed beyond 120 days without sufficient cause cannot be entertained, emphasizing equal standards for government and private parties in legal proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the law of limitation has to be applied with rigor, and a satisfactory explanation is required for condonation of delay.
A government body cannot benefit from its own negligence; explanations for condonation of delay must be reasonable, and inordinate delay jeopardizes the rights of others.
The court ruled that under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013, appeals must be filed within 120 days, and the court has no power to condone delays beyond th....
The court emphasized that while a liberal approach is generally applied in condoning delays under the Limitation Act, lack of sufficient cause, particularly evident inactivity, precludes such discret....
(1) Law of limitation is founded on public policy – Appeal which is preferred after expiry of limitation is liable to be dismissed.(2) Bar of limitation – Delay is not liable to be condoned merely be....
The court ruled that under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013, appeals must be filed within 120 days, and the court has no power to condone delays beyond th....
Limitation - Condonation of delay - Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when statute so prescribe and Courts have no power to extend p....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
