‘Top Officials Encouraging State's Financial Loss’: MP High Court Slams Govt For ‘Shocking’ Appeal Delay - 2025-09-16

MP High Court Slams State Officials for 'Shocking' Appeal Delay, Suggests Intent to Cause Financial Loss

Gwalior, MP – The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a first appeal filed by the State government, citing an extraordinary and unexplained delay of nearly three years. In a scathing order, the court lambasted the "lethargic attitude" of senior state officials, suggesting their actions were tantamount to encouraging practices that cause financial losses to the state exchequer.

The bench of Justice G. S. Ahluwalia, while hearing the appeal in The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Mahendra , dismissed the case as hopelessly barred by time and found the State’s justification for the delay "completely unsatisfactory."

Background of the Case

The State of Madhya Pradesh had filed a first appeal under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The appeal challenged a land acquisition award passed by the 5th District Judge, Gwalior, on July 26, 2022, which had enhanced the compensation for the respondents.

The State's appeal, however, was filed only on June 18, 2025, leading the court to scrutinize the application for condonation of delay.

A Timeline of 'Shocking' Inaction

The court expressed its shock at the timeline presented by the State, noting that the delay appeared deliberate. Justice Ahluwalia observed that the Executive Engineer seemed "out and out to ensure that appeal is not filed within the period of limitation so that respondents may get advantage of the same."

The court highlighted the following timeline of inaction: - July 26, 2022: The District Judge passes the award. - August 13, 2023: The Law Department grants permission to file an appeal (over a year later). - July 8, 2024: An application for a certified copy of the award is filed (11 months after getting permission). - July 11, 2024: The certified copy is supplied (within three days). - June 18, 2025: The appeal is finally filed (another 11 months after receiving the copy).

Court Slams Unsatisfactory Affidavit from Top Official

In a previous hearing, the court had directed the Principal Secretary of the Water Resources Department to file an affidavit detailing the action taken against the officials responsible for the delay.

In response, Dr. Rajesh Rajora, Additional Chief Secretary of the department, filed an affidavit stating that show-cause notices had been issued to three officiating Executive Engineers. However, the court found this response to be a "mere formality."

"It appears that the State authorities are still waiting for this case to be finally adjudicated, so that they can give a clean-chit or can keep the show-cause notices in cold storage," the court remarked.

Justice Ahluwalia further noted that the affidavit failed to explain why the department was "encouraging such type of practice," a specific query raised by the court earlier. The judgment stated:

"Thus, it is clear that the top officials of the State Government are out and out to encourage the authorities to act contrary to the interest of the State, so that the State may suffer financial losses."

Arguments on Merits Also Fail

Even on the merits of the case, the State's arguments failed to persuade the court. The government counsel argued that the case was covered by a previous judgment in The State of M.P. and others Vs. Chhakkilal and others . However, the court found that the precedents cited in Chhakkilal did not support the State's position, particularly on issues like the reference being time-barred or the reliance on Collector's guidelines for determining market value.

Final Decision and Implications

Ultimately, the court concluded that the State had "miserably failed in making out any sufficient cause for condonation of delay" and had also failed to take corrective measures to prevent such official lethargy.

Dismissing the appeal as barred by time, Justice Ahluwalia left it to the Chief Secretary to "consider the conduct of its subordinates." The decision serves as a stern warning to government departments against procedural delays and underscores the judiciary's intolerance for official negligence that harms the public interest.