IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN C.M.P.No.25085 of 2025 and W.A.SR No.133392 of 2025

1. The District Collector Office of District Collector, 4th floor, Singaravelar Maligai, Chennai District.

2. The Special Commissioner Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. 3. The Competent Authority (Urban and Land Ceiling)

Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax, Poonamallee, Chennai.

Petitioner(s)/

Appellant(s)

Vs P Veera Babu S/o.Late Purushothaman, Plot No.1, Thirumal Nagar 1st Street, Puthagaram, Chennai - 600 099.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER in C.M.P.No.25085 of 2025 : Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 737 days in filing the appeal.

PRAYER in WA SR No.133392 of 2025 : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 13.7.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.28312 of 2021.

For Appellant(s): Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar State Government Pleader ORDER (Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

In support of the prayer seeking condonation of delay of 737 days, all that has been stated in the affidavit is as below:

“7. Further, it is submitted that, the 3^rd Appellant herein, in addition to Ambattur jurisdiction has also to handle 2 more jurisdictions viz., Poonamallee & Madhavaram. The 3^rd appellant has to perform duties pertaining to both the Acts mentioned below in respect of more than 168 Revenue Villages comprised within aforesaid 3 jurisdictions i. Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 / Repeal Act 20/1999 ii. Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966/Amendment Act, 1991.

It is also evident that delay caused due to pure administrative reasons as well as usual legal procedures adopted by this department before preferring an appeal.”

2. To say the least, no cause, much less sufficient cause, has been shown. It appears that the officials concerned dealing with the files were completely indolent and sat over the matter without doing anything.

3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in umpteen number of judgments, held that the period of limitation is required to be explained by the State and it does not stand on any exalted position.

(i) In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. V. Bherulal, 1(2020) 10 SCC 654 it was found that the appeal filed by the State was with delay of 663 days. The cause shown for inordinate delay in that case was due to unavailability of documents and the process of arranging documents and also a reference to bureaucratic process works. In the aforesaid factual context, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, observed as

below:

"3. No doubt, some leeway is given for the Government inefficiencies but the sad part is that the authorities keep on relying on judicial pronouncements for a period of time when technology had not advanced and a greater leeway was given to the Government (Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. MANU/SC/0460/1987 : (1987) 2 SCC 107). This position is more than elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. MANU/SC/0132/2012 : (2012) 3 SCC 563 where the Court observed as under:

"27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. 28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gro