An inordinate delay in filing an appeal cannot be condoned where the applicant fails to establish 'sufficient cause' or demonstrate bona fide diligence, particularly when the appeal appears to be a tactical maneuver to avoid contempt proceedings instead of a genuine effort to address the legal merits within the statutory limitations.

D.B:-Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal &

Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

CAV ORDER

Per: Sanjay S. Agrawal, J.

1. Heard on I.A. No.02/2025 and I.A. No.03/2025, applications seeking condonation of delay of 615 days’ in preferring of this appeal.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/State submits that the order impugned passed on 22/12/2023 by the Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority (hereinafter referred to as “Authority”) constituted under Section 51 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 2013”), was forwarded by the Government Advocate appearing before the said Authority to the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Division- Korba (C.G.), who in turn, has sought for an opinion from him on 02/02/2024 and in response to it, the said Government Advocate vide letter dated 14/02/2024 has opined for assailing the same. It is contended further that in the meantime, an opinion was also sought from the Office of Advocate General on 08/02/2024, where, an opinion was given vide letter dated 19/03/2024 for challenging the same. Further of his contention is that, on 09/07/2024, a permission was sought by the Water Resources Department from the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs for filing an appeal against the said impugned order, where, permission was accorded on 19/11/2024 and, in pursuance thereof, the Officer-in-Charge, appointed on 10/05/2024 has contacted the Officer of the Office of Advocate General on 20/11/2024. It is contended further that the said Officer-in-Charge was directed to bring all the necessary and relevant documents, as well as, the certified copy of the order impugned and, in pursuance to the said direction, he contacted the said office and supplied the relevant documents and, based upon which, an appeal, being F.A. (M) No.01/2025, was filed without any further delay. It is contended further that, since there was some default(s) in preferring the same, therefore, after its withdrawal on 14/11/2025, the instant appeal has been preferred. While furnishing these materials, it is contended that the alleged delay in preferring this appeal has been occurred bonafidely and may be condoned in order to provide substantial justice to the parties.

3. In response to the aforesaid contention, it is contended by the counsel appearing for the respondents that, after passing of the order impugned, the Land Acquisition Officer vide its letter dated 24/01/2024, had directed the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department to deposit the amount of compensation, but the same was not deposited even though the direction was issued by this Court vide order dated 01/08/2024 in WP(C) No.3906/2024. It is contended further that the Contempt Case (C) No.3906/2024 was, therefore, filed where a notice was directed to be issued on 10/12/2024, however, in order to get rid of it, the State Authorities have filed the appeal on 09/12/2024, registered as FA(M) No.01/2025, which shows the lack of bonafide on part of the appellants/State Authorities. It is contended further that since the appeal was filed on 09/12/2024, therefore, the said Contempt Petition was disposed of vide order dated 21/01/2025 (Annexure R/2). It is contended further that the order impugned was passed on 22/12/2023, where as the opinion was sought from the Government Pleader only, on 02/02/2024 and, no explanation was given why it was not obtained immediately thereafter and, contended further that, though the legal opinion was given on 19/03/2024 by the Office of Advocate General to this ef