IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
TASHI RABSTAN, MOHAN LAL, JJ.
UT of J&K and Others – Appellants
Versus
Kuldeep Raj and Others – Respondents
L.P.A. No. 05 of 2023, C.M. Nos. 285, 286 of 2023
Decided On : 16-08-2023
ORDER :
CM No. 285/2023
1. Applicants/appellants have preferred instant application in terms of Section 5 of the Limitation Act r/w Rule 44 of the J&K High Court Rules seeking condonation of 275 days delay in filing the LPA (Letters Patent Appeal) against the judgment/order dated 11.02.2022 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this court in OWP No. 644/2019 titled Kuldeep Raj and Others vs. State of J&K and Others, whereby, the appellants-respondents therein were directed to process and make the payment of compensation to the respondents herein in accordance with the law for their respective portion of land taken over from them while treating the same to have been acquired pursuant to Notification No. 08 of 2018 dated 23.01.2018 issued under Section 4(1) of the J&K Land Acquisition Act 1990 (Svt) r/w Notice No. DCK/ADCK/LA/2017-18/211-16 dated 23.01.2018 issued under Sections 9 & 9-A of the Act of 1990.
2. It is averred, that the judgment was announced on 11.02.2022, on receipt of copy of the judgment from the Hon’ble High Court matter was referred to the Department of Law Justice and Parliamentary Affairs of UT of J&K alongwith the record of the case for it’s examination and opinion, the Law Department after examining the judgment in the light of the record of the case and taking a holistic view of the matter advised the appellant to file the appeal before the High Court against the impugned judgment vide communication dated 11.11.2022, the appellant on receipt of the communication from the Government immediately contacted his counsel namely Sh. S. S. Nanda Sr. AAG and steps were taken for the drafting of the appeal and filing of the same before the Hon’ble Court without any further delay. It is contended, that before the appeal could be filed, the Department of Law Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Civil Secretariat Jammu/Srinagar vide order dated 23.11.2022 ordered that the litigation work pertaining to the Revenue Department before the Jammu Wing of the High Court shall be dealt with by Mrs. Monika Kohli Sr. AAG, the appellant immediately vide his office Letter DCK/LEGAL/2022-23/510-512 dated 26.11.2022 took up the matter with the Law Department to request Mrs. Monika Kohli Sr. AAG to file and conduct LPA before the Hon’ble High Court at Jammu, the Department of Law Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Civil Secretariat Jammu/Srinagar vide office communication No. Law-Lit9/524/2022-10 dated 28.11.2022 requested Mrs. Monika Kohli Sr. AAG to file and conduct LPA before Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu. It is stated, that the delay in filing the appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional but because of the circumstances detailed above, the delay caused in filing the appeal is with all bona-fide and no mala-fide are involved in it, the issues involved in the appeal are vital in nature and can only be argued once the Hon’ble Court permits the appellant to do so by condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Application is supported by an affidavit.
3. Respondents in their counter have opposed the application seeking condonation of delay and have sought it’s dismissal on the grounds, that the above titled LPA (Letters Patent Appeal) is hopelessly time barred as there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 275 days in preferring the appeal and the appellants have miserably failed to give any plausible reason/justification for delay in preferring the above titled LPA. It is contended, that the judgment was passed in the presence of the counsel for the appellants and therefore the counsel for the appellant was very much aware about the judgment impugned the moment same was passed by the writ court on 11.02.2022, appellants in their application have neither placed on record anything nor uttered even a single word as to the date when they received the copy of the judgment dated 11.02.2022 and as to the date when they sought legal opinion and when they applied for the sanction to prefer the above titled appea
Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others
Postmaster General and Others vs. Living Media India Ltd. (2012) 3 SCC 563
P.K. Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala and Another
State of Haryana vs. Chandra Mani and Others
State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs. Bherulal
Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition, Kerala vs. K.V. Ayisumma
State of Uttar Pradesh through Executive Engineer and Another vs. Amar Nath Yadav
The Chief Post Master General vs. Living Media India Ltd. 2012 (3) SCC 563
The law of limitation applies rigorously, and government departments must provide satisfactory explanations for delays in legal proceedings; mere procedural inefficiencies are insufficient.
Administrative lethargy and bureaucratic delays do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning inordinate delays by state in filing appeals; bona fides and vigilance required.
The law of limitation is strict and must be adhered to; bureaucratic delays are not sufficient grounds for condoning delays in filing appeals.
State cannot condone inordinate appeal delays via bureaucratic excuses; unexplained periods and administrative lethargy fail sufficient cause test, binding government to limitation laws equally.
The law of limitation must be strictly adhered to, and the burden lies on the party seeking condonation to demonstrate that the delay was due to sufficient cause, free from negligence or lack of bona....
The court held that bureaucratic inefficiencies do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning delays in appeals, emphasizing accountability in litigation processes.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.