PRAYER in CMP:

Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 392 days in filing the present Writ Appeal against the Order dated 05.10.2021 made in W.P.No.2489 of 2005.

PRAYER IN WA:

Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 05.10.2021 passed in WP No.2489 of 2005 on the file of this Court.

For Appellant(s): Mr.K.Maheswaran, Addl Govt Pleader

For Respondent(s):Ms.S.Sujitha for M/s Sampathkumar and Asso

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

1. Heard on the application seeking condonation of delay of 392 days in filing the writ appeal, which assails the order dated 05.10.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.2489 of 2005.

2. In support of the prayer seeking condonation of delay of 392 days in filing, all that has been stated in the affidavit is as below:

“11. It is submitted that in the instant case, Writ Petition under reference was ordered on 05.10.2021 and original order was received on 16.12.2021 by the Office of the Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner of Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax. Based on the opinion of the legal authority of this Hon’ble Court it was decided by the Head of the Department of Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax Department to prefer an appeal against the aforesaid order. Due official procedures were followed to get relevant draft legal documents vetted by the legal authority concerned. Further, the 3rd Appellant herein, in addition to Madhavaram jurisdiction has also to handle 2 more jurisdictions, i.e., Poonamallee & Ambattur. The 3rd Respondent 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 evident that in the instant case delay occurred due to heavy work load and for 3rd Appellant herein. It is also evident that delay caused due to pure administrative reasons as well as usual legal procedures adopted by this department.”

3. 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.

4. 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 plausibl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document