The judiciary should adopt a pragmatic, justice-oriented approach when evaluating applications for condonation of delay by administrative bodies. While not exempt from the duty of diligence, institutional constraints in governmental decision-making processes constitute a relevant, non-exhaustive factor in determining the existence of 'sufficient cause'.

ORDER :

D.B. Misc. Application No.1048/2019 in D.B. Review Petition No.289/2019:

1. The instant D.B. Civil Review Petition under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 114 of CPC read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the review petitioners (Union of India and another), to review the judgment dated 14.07.2017 in D.B. Special Appeal Petition No. 585/2002 titled as "Union of India and Anr. versus Shri Brijraj Singh and Anr."

2. The office has pointed out a delay of 845 days and, to condone the delay, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed by the review petitioners, supported with the affidavit of Ms. Ankita Singh, working as Defence Estate Officer, Jaipur Circle, Jaipur. A reply has been filed on behalf of the non-applicant/respondent.

3. Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the review petitioners submit that the D.B. SAW was decided on 14.07.2017 and, thereafter, the appellants/review petitioners decided to challenge the judgment before Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing a SLP. He further submitted that the SLP was dismissed on 20.08.2018 after condonation of delay of 402 days. He further submitted that the matter was re- examined by the learned Additional Solicitor General and the department after revelation of certain new facts related to ongoing litigation between the respondent and the State Government. He further submitted that, on legal advice, the review petitioners have filed the present review petition after a delay of 443 days from the dismissal of the SLP (Civil) by Hon’ble Supreme Court.

4. He further referred to Section 12 of the Limitation Act and submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court has condoned the delay of 402 days and now the delay is of 443 days, and the same requires favourable consideration from this Hon’ble Court. He also submitted that, as per the facts of the case, proceedings under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Acquisition of Landowners’ Estates Act, 1963 were instituted before the Commissioner at Kota and, thereafter, the issue was challenged by the State Government before the Revenue Board, and later writ petition was filed. He also submitted that there is a serious dispute about ownership of the land and, after examination of documents, certain new facts discovered; therefore, the review petition is filed. He further submitted that the delay has occurred due to administrative process, and for condonation of delay, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed. He also submitted that the reasons are justified and the action of the review petitioners is bona fide.

5. He also placed reliance upon judgments in the cases of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. Katiji reported as AIR 1987 SC 1353, State of NCT of Delhi versus Ahmed Jaan reported as (2008) 14 SCC 582 State of Haryana versus Chandramani reported as (1996) 3 SCC 132, and K.B. Ramchandra Raje versus State of Karnataka , (2016) 3 SCC 422.

6. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the non-applicant/respondent on the ground that the SAW was decided on 14.07.2017, whereas the review petition is filed on 06.12.2019, and there is a del