Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
N.V.ANJARIA, A.S. SUPEHIA, JJ.
State Of Gujarat Through Deputy Secretary – Appellant
Versus
Kasiben Ratanjibhai Gamit – Respondent
In F/First Appeal No. 23319 of 2019, R/Civil Application No. 3761, 3762, 3764 to 3766 of 2019
Decided on : 28-01-2021
Delay Condonation - Land Acquisition - Limitation Act - Section 5, Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Limited [(2012) 3 SCC 563], State of U.P. v. Amar Nath Yadav [AIR 2014 SCW 1074], Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer [(2013) 12 SCC 81] - The court refused to condone the delay of 1569 days in filing the respective First Appeals arising from a common judgment and award in Land Reference Case Nos.231-236 of 2012. The delay was attributed to procedural inefficiencies and negligence on the part of the governmental authorities. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the limitation period prescribed by the statute and highlighted that the principle of non-entertainment of challenge to judgment or order by a higher court after the lapse of time is based on well-accepted norms of public policy and jurisprudence. The court cited precedents to emphasize that condonation of delay should not be routine and should only be granted when there is a sufficient cause, which was not found in this case.
Fact of the Case:
The Civil Applications sought condonation of delay of 1569 days in filing respective First Appeals arising from a common judgment and award in Land Reference Case Nos.231-236 of 2012 passed by the Reference Court. The delay was attributed to procedural inefficiencies and negligence on the part of the governmental authorities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay of 1569 days could not be condoned due to the lack of diligence, gross negligence, and indolence on the part of the governmental authorities. As a result, all the applications were dismissed, and the respective appeals of the State were refused registration.
Issues: The main issue was whether the delay of 1569 days in filing the respective First Appeals should be condoned, considering the reasons provided by the governmental authorities for the delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the limitation period prescribed by the statute and highlighted that the principle of non-entertainment of challenge to judgment or order by a higher court after the lapse of time is based on well-accepted norms of public policy and jurisprudence. The court cited precedents to emphasize that condonation of delay should not be routine and should only be granted when there is a sufficient cause, which was not found in this case.
Final Decision: The delay of 1569 days could not be condoned, and as a result, all the applications were dismissed. The respective appeals of the State were refused registration.
JUDGMENT :
N.V.ANJARIA, J.
In The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bherulal [IA No.62372 of 2020 in Special Leave Petition (C) No.9217 of 2020] order came to be passed by the Honourable Supreme Court refusing to condone the delay of 663 days with the following prefacing observations.
1.1 We are at pains to state, as the five captioned Civil Applications preferred by the State seeking to condone the delay of 1569 days, comes up for consideration before us, that the message in observations of the Apex Court would apply.
2. These Civil Applications are filed seeking condonation of delay occasioned in preferring the respective First Appeals which arise from common judgment and award in Land Reference Case Nos.231-236 of 2012 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge at Vyara, District Tapi, whereby the Reference Court awarded additional compensation at the rate of Rs.270/- per sq. mtrs. in respect of land situated in Village Veldha, Taluka Vyara which was situated near the municipal limits of the City of Vyara and acquired for the purpose of construction of Ukai High Level Cantor Canal.
2.1 Heard learned Assistant Government Pleaders Mr.Rohan Shah and Ms.Dhwani Tripathi for the applicant-State in the respective Civil Applications in which they have filed their appearance, learned advocate Mr.Vidit Sharma who appear in Civil Application No.3726 of 2019 and learned advocate Mr.Nikunt Raval appearing in Civil Application No.3765 of 2019.
3. The judgment and award by the Reference Court was delivered on 05th November, 2014 in all cases. The certified copy came to be applied on 25th June, 2015 which was stated to be ready on 21st July, 2015. Explaining the delay, it was stated that thereafter the District Government Pleader submitted opinion regarding preferring of appeal on 21st October, 2015. This opinion was received by the office of the Superintending Engineer. The file was then put up before the State Government. It was then forwarded to the Budget Branch of the Finance Department, it was stated; a committee of the Finance Department was constituted to which the proposal was submitted on 01st February, 2016. It is then stated that now opinion of the Superintending Engineer was received; the check-list was prepared and the file was again put up before the State Government. It was considered by yet another committee known as Land Acquisition Committee.
3.1 The averments to explain the delay in the Civil Applications, raising common facts and grounds, proceeded to state further that the Revenue Department and Legal Department granted their approval. Instructions were received to approach the office of the Government Pleader in the High Court. It was then stated that the office of Ukai Veir Project Sub-division Office No.1 was closed which was the office handling the case and that the entire record in the Department was shifted to another place in the month of August, 2018. It was next stated that office of the Government Pleader in the High Court was approached. It was thereafter claimed that at that stage some discrepancies in the certified copy of the judgment and award were noticed and the certified copy was applied again on 12th December, 2018 by the District Government Pleader, which was received on 27th February, 2019. The reasons for delay were furnished to the office of Assistant Government Pleader who was to draft the appeal. Finally, the appeals could be preferred with delay of 1569 d
Condonation of delay should not be routine and should only be granted when there is a sufficient cause, as emphasized by the court in this judgment.
Period of limitation – Condonation of delay – No event or circumstance arising after expiry of limitation can constitute sufficient cause – Expression ‘sufficient cause’ cannot be liberally interpret....
The court underscored that delays due to administrative negligence cannot justify condonation in legal proceedings, particularly for state agencies, emphasizing the importance of diligence in adherin....
The court held that bureaucratic inefficiencies do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning delays in appeals, emphasizing accountability in litigation processes.
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
