The court held that bureaucratic inefficiencies do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning delays in appeals, emphasizing accountability in litigation processes.

JUDGMENT :

PRASHANT KUMAR, J.

Order on Applications for Condonation of Delay

1. Vakalatnama filed by Shri Paavan Awasthi on behalf of respondent No.1/2/1 in First Appeal Defective No.129/2025 is taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Mukund Tewari, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Bhanu Bajpai, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Paaavan Awasthi, learned counsel for respondents and perused the record.

3. As per office report, First Appeal Defective No.129 of 2025 has been filed with delay of 173 days and First Appeal Defective No.130 of 2025 has been filed with delay of 182 days.

4. These first appeals have been filed by the appellant-Lko. Development Authority against the judgment and order dated 09.08.2024 passed by Presiding Officer, Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Tribunal, Kapoorthala, Lucknow Division, Lucknow in Misc. Case No.16/1990 (Smt. Shakuntala Devi (dead) and others vs. U.P. State through Collector, Lucknow and others) and Misc. Case No.14/1990, Chandra Kishore Rastogi (dead) and another vs. U.P. State through Collector, Lucknow and others under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 respectively.

5. The reasons stated in the delay condonation applications are that the impugned orders were passed on 09.08.2024 and the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant before the Tribunal only came to know about the judgment on 08.09.2024 however, no reasons had been given as to who informed him and what was the reason for not knowing. Even after knowing about the judgment on 08.09.2024, the certified copies were applied on 25.09.2024 which were made available on 03.10.2024. The reasons stated in the application filed along with delay condonation applications are nothing but an excuse and an effort has been made to explain the delay.

6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant submits that in these cases the delay is not an inordinate delay as the delay is only 173 & 182 days respectively.

7. It is further submitted that the certified copies were misplaced and later on recovered and it is only after getting certified copies, an opinion was given by him to contest the matter on 21.12.2024. Thereafter, the matter was put up before the Department who examined the matter on 08.01.2025 and 21.01.2025 and thereafter, the matter was referred to the lawyer and the appeal was filed on 08.05.2025.

8. To buttress his argument he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Inder Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in [2025 SCC OnLine SC 600]. He submits that this judgment considers the previous judgments and held as under:-

"13. In the present case, the contentions of the appellant, on first blush appears to be attractive, inasmuch as the State cannot be given any undue indulgence as compared to an ordinary litigant, especially in matters of limitation. There is no doubt that all parties, whether or not State under Article 123 of the Constitution, are required to act with due diligence and promptitude.

14. There can be no quarrel on the settled principle of law that delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, but a major aspect which has to be kept in mind is that, if in a particular case, the merits have to be examined, it should not be scuttled merely on the basis of limitation.

15. In