Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat & 2 vs Madansinh Ramsing Rajput on 23 June, 2017
Author: Anant S.Dave
Bench: Anant S. Dave, A.Y. Kogje
C/CA/11208/2016 CAV ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 11208 of 2016
In
FIRST APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) NO. 2676 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11209 of 2016
In
FIRST APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) NO. 2677 of 2016
TO
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11215 of 2016
In
FIRST APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) NO. 2683 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2075 of 2017
In
FIRST APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) NO. 3730 of 2016
TO
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2081 of 2017
In
FIRST APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) NO. 3736 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2083 of 2017
In
FIRST APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) NO. 3710 of 2016
TO
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2088 of 2017
In
FIRST APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) NO. 3715 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4656 of 2017
In
FIRST APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) NO. 547 of 2017
Page 1 of 29
HC-NIC Page 1 of 29 Created On Sat Aug 12 13:22:14 IST 2017
C/CA/11208/2016 CAV ORDER
TO
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4662 of 2017
In
FIRST APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) NO. 553 of 2017
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Applicant(s) Versus MADANSINH RAMSING RAJPUT....Respondent(s) ========================================================== Appearance:
Mr.ROBIN MOGERA, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 3.
Mr.NIRUPAM D. NANAVATY, SENIOR COUNSEL for MR NIKUNT K RAVAL, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1, Mr.VIDIT S SHARMA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Date : 23/06//2017 CAV ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE) This group of Civil Applications, in four batches, are filed by the State for condonation of delay in preferring appeals against the award of the Reference Court. The appeals are arising out of the same acquisition proceedings and hence below mentioned groups of Civil applications are taken up for hearing jointly. However, for the purpose of convenience, facts are drawn from the first batch of applications, viz. Civil Applications No.11208 - 11215 of 2016.
Page 2 of 29 HC-NIC Page 2 of 29 Created On Sat Aug 12 13:22:14 IST 2017 C/CA/11208/2016 CAV ORDER Sl.No. Civil Application No. Land Delay in Acquisition number Reference Case of days No. and date of Impugned award 1 11208 to 11215 of 2016 Nos.148-155 of 744 2012 dated 16.01.2014 2 2075-2081 of 2017 276-284 of 2012 683 dated 05.11.2014 3 2083-2088 of 2017 188-194 of 2012 622 4 4656-4662 of 2017 137-147 of 2012 925 dated 16.01.2014
2. These Civil Applications are filed for condonation of delay of 744 days, which had occurred in filing the First Appeals by the State of Gujarat against the judgment and award rendered by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vyara dated 16.01.2014 in Land Reference Cases No.148 to 155 of 2012.
3. For the public purpose of construction of High Level Contour Canal, notification under section 4 was published on 17.04.2008 for acquisition of land situated at Village Kanpura, Taluka Vyara, District Tapi for which Special Land Acquisition Officer passed award on 27.09.2011 and declared compensation at the rate of Rs.28/- per square meter.
4. Not being satisfied with the award of the Special Land Page 3 of 29 HC-NIC Page 3 of 29 Created On Sat Aug 12 13:22:14 IST 2017 C/CA/11208/2016 CAV ORDER Acquisition Officer, the interested persons preferred land reference cases with the claim of additional compensation at the rate of Rs.1000/- per square meter.
5. The reference court allowed the references by awarding additional compensation at the rate of Rs.417/- per square meter with statutory interest on the aggregate amount and benefits as provided under the Statute.
6. The State of Gujarat, through the concerned Department has resolved to challenge the order of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vyara in awarding compensation at the rate mentioned in the preceding paras. However, when such appeals were preferred before this Court there was delay of 744 days. In para 3 of the Civil Application, the State of Gujarat has narrated as to how files in connection with preferring all the appeals have proceeded from the concerned Department to the Secretariat. It also narrates bare dates as to how files proceeded, which can be narrated as under:
Date event
16/01/14 Impugned judgment rendered by the learned
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vyara..
05/08/15 Opinion under LOR-131 received by the Legal
Department by communication dated 01.08.2015.
01/11/15 Department receives communication dated Page 4 of 29 HC-NIC Page 4 of 29 Created On Sat Aug 12 13:22:14 IST 2017 C/CA/11208/2016 CAV ORDER 21.10.2015 to stop financial burden on the State Government and to deposit the amount of compensation. Submit the file to Finance Department.
23/11/15 Sanction given by Special Secretary, Narmada Water Resources, Water Supply and Kalpasar Department.
02/12/15 File submitted to Finance Department for the purpose of sanction of grant under the Budget head.
22/01/16 The Finance Department returned the file with instructions to constitute a committee and thereafter submit the file through appropriate committee.
28/01/16 Deputy Secretary (Recovery) with instruction to Finance Department to keep the file pending till committee is constituted as per instructions of Finance Department.
14/03/16 Committee constituted vide Resolution No.PARACH/ 2015/ 458/ K5 to decide on whether to file an appeal.
04/04/16 File submitted before the committee by Finance Department.
21/04/16 Committee agreed to accept the judgment of the District Court as it being that of petty amount. 16/05/16 Again file submitted before the Committee.
24/05/16 Committee under the chairmanship of Chief
Page 5 of 29
HC-NIC Page 5 of 29 Created On Sat Aug 12 13:22:14 IST 2017
C/CA/11208/2016 CAV ORDER
Engineer and additional Secretary sanctioned the proposal for the purpose of preferring an appeal. 02/07/16 Narmada Water Resources, Water Supply and Kalpasar Department decided to file an appeal. 19/07/16 Revenue Department approved the proposal of filing an appeal and the file was forwarded to Legal Department.
27/07/16 Instruction issued to Superintending Engineer,Ukai Circle (Civil),Ukai to contact the Office of the Government Pleader for initiating process of filing First Appeal.
15/09/16 Office of the Government Pleader received detailed Record & Proceedings of the land reference case. 23/09/16 First Appeal filed with delay of 744 days.
7. The learned Assistant Government Pleader (AGP) appearing on behalf of the State submits that the delay which had occurred in preferring the appeals is merely on account of procedure required to be followed and that on account of financial implication, Government had to decide to constitute a committee especially with reference to resolution of the State Government regarding preferring appeals where petty amount is involved. He submits that the Government by its resolution had constituted such committee. Said committee has undertaken the exercise of examining the case in totality including resolution pertaining to appeals in case of petty amount involved and that after undertaking such exercise gave opinion that appeals may be preferred in such Page 6 of 29 HC-NIC Page 6 of 29 Created On Sat Aug 12 13:22:14 IST 2017 C/CA/11208/2016 CAV ORDER cases.
8. Mr.Nirupam D. Nanavaty, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-claimants has opposed the Civil Applications for condonation of delay. He submits that now it is well settled proposition of law that even for the State Government, delay has to be explained in detail and in fact explanation on day to day basis is required to be pleaded and established. According to him no explanation is offered for the delay for the period between 16.01.2014 and 01.08.2015. Similarly no explanation is offered for the delay between 01.08.2015 and 01.11.2015. He submits that where there is unexplained delay, such delay should not be condoned.
9. In support of his contentions the learned senior advocate has referred to and relied upon various judgments of this High Court, other High Courts and the Hon'ble Apex Court.
(i) New India Insurance Company and others Vs. Smt. Keshar and others, reported in A.I.R. 1996 Rajasthan 28.
Paras 6 and 7 are relied on.
(ii) State of Gujarat Vs. Saiyed Mohd. Banquir, reported in 1981 GLH 425. Para 2 is relied on.
(iii) Mahant Niranjan Dass Vs. Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar, reported in A.I.R. 1992 SC Page 7 of 29 HC-NIC Page 7 of 29 Created On Sat Aug 12 13:22:14 IST 2017 C/CA/11208/2016 CAV ORDER
492. Para 3 is relied on.
(iv) Prakash and another Vs. Managing Director, KSRTC and others, reported in A.I.R. 2000 SC 3419. Para 3 is relied on.
(v) D. Gopinathan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and another, reported in 2007 (1) CCC 180 (SC), Para 5 is relied on.
(vi) Municipal Corporation of the city of Ahmedabad Vs. Calico Dyeing & Printing Works, Ahmedabad, reported in 1993(1) GLH 285. Para 10 is relied on.
(vii) M/s Democratic Builders Vs. Union of India, reported in A.I.R. 1993 Delhi 132. Para 6 is relied on.
(viii) Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad Vs. Voltas Ltd, reported in 1994 (2) GLR 1325. Paras 5.2, 11, 20 and 31 are relied on.
(ix) Dy Secretary, R&B Department Vs. Dhanuben Kalidas Nayaka & others, reported in 1999 (1) GLH 666. Para 4 is relied on.
(x) Office of the Chief Post Master General & others Vs. Living Media Indian Ltd & another, reported in 2012 (1) GLH 670 (SC). Paras 12 and 13 are relied on.
Page 8 of 29
HC-NIC Page 8 of 29 Created On Sat Aug 12 13:22:14 IST 2017
C/CA/11208/2016 CAV ORDER
(xi) State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Amarnath Yadav,
reported in (2014) 2 SCC 422. Paras 2 and 3 are relied on.
(xii) Basawaraj and others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 81. Paras 12 to 15 are relied on.
(xiii) Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Amateur Riders Club, reported in 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 603. Paras 2 and 3 are relied on.
(xiv) Amalendu Kumar Bera and others Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 52. Para is relied on. Paras 9 and 10 are relied on.
(xv) Kumar and others Vs. Karnataka Industrial Cooperative Bank Ltd and others, reported in (2013) 11 SCC 668. Para 7 is relied on.
(xvi) Maniben Devraj Shah Vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, reported in (2012) 5 SCC 157. Paras 14, 15, 25 and 29 are relied on.
(xvii) Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, reported in (2011) 14 SCC 578. Para 5 is relied on.
(xviii) Pundik Jalam Patel Vs. Executive Engineer,
Page 9 of 29
HC-NIC Page 9 of 29 Created On Sat Aug 12 13:22:14 IST 2017
C/CA/11208/2016 CAV ORDER
Jalgaon Medium Project and another, reported in (2008) 17 SCC 448. Paras 17 to 20 are relied on.
10. Mr.Nirupam D. Nanavaty, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- claimants has also relied upon the Circular issued by the Government of Gujarat, Legal Department dated 09.02.2015, pursuant to the direction issued by the High Court of Gujarat, which provides for time bound steps to be taken by the officers and authorities for avoiding the delay in court proceedings on the part of the State Government and therefore, even as per the circular the officers and authorities were bound to act. For not having acted so, the claimants cannot be made to suffer.
11. Mr.Nirupam D. Nanavaty, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- claimants has also relied upon the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondent (one of the claimants) and urged this Court not to entertain the application for codonantion of delay.
12. As against this, the learned Assistant Government Pleader has filed additional affidavit sworn by the Deputy Executive Engineer to explain the delay in detail. He has stated on oath that the judgment impugned is rendered by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vyara. However, the said fact came to the knowledge Page 10 of 29 HC-NIC Page 10 of 29 Created On Sat Aug 12 13:22:14 IST 2017 C/CA/11208/2016 CAV ORDER of the authorities of Narmada Water Resources, Water Supply and Kalpasar Department (hereinafter referred to as 'the concerned Department') in the month of June 2015. Therefore, the Department had applied for certified copy of the judgment on 25.06.2015 and sought opinion of the learned District Government Pleader, Tapi and Vyara by letter dated 22.07.2015. Thereupon certified copy of the judgment was received by the Department on 28.07.2015 and the opinion of the the learned District Government Pleader was received on 05.08.2015. Details of the file for acquisition was sought from the Superintending Engineer of the local area, viz. Ukai by letter dated 14.08.2015. From the affidavit it appears that by letter dated 30.09.2015 another letter was given by the Department to the Superintending Engineer for receiving necessary documents and the Superintending Engineer vide letter dated 21.10.2015 had forwarded all the documents to the concerned Department.
13. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has taken us through various communications referred to in the preceding paras to support his contentions regarding movement of files in chronological order of documents, which include legal opinion of the learned District Government Pleader, inter-departmental communications between the Secretariat and the local office at Ukai, communications between Narmada Water Resources, Water Supply and Kalpasar Department and the local office of the Page 11 of 29 HC-NIC Page 11 of 29 Created On Sat Aug 12 13:22:14 IST 2017 C/CA/11208/2016 CAV ORDER concerned Department, communications between the concerned Department and the Office of the Deputy Collector, Rehabilitation and the communications between the concerned Department and the Legal Department for undertaking the process of preferring appeals.
14. Considering the financial implication of the case, decision was taken by the concerned Department to forward the file to the Finance Department for sanction of grant under the Budget Head- 8674 and for the same on 23.11.2015 Special Secretary, Narmada Water Resources, Water Supply and Kalpasar Department granted sanction to forward the file before the Finance Department. Accordingly on 02.12.2015 the file was submitted to the Finance Department (Budget Branch).
15. On the other hand the concerned Department has also sought opinion from the Deputy Collector, Rehabilitation- cum- Special Land Acquisition Officer by letter dated 07.12.2015 and the Deputy Collector, Rehabilitation furnished his opinion vide communication dated 06.01.2016. The Finance Department returned the file on 22.01.2016 with instructions to constitute a committee and that file was required to be submitted after scrutiny by the appropriate committee. In the meanwhile, the Superintending Engineer of the local area has also forwarded his opinion which was received by the concerned Department on Page 12 of 29 HC-NIC Page 12 of 29 Created On Sat Aug 12 13:22:14 IST 2017 C/CA/11208/2016 CAV ORDER 30.01.2016 and by the Department's Resolution dated 14.03.2016 a committee was constituted. The file was placed before the Committee on 04.04.2016. On 21.04.2016 the Committee agreed to accept the decision of the District Court as it was a case of petty amount. The Committee communicated to the concerned Department to place the file again along with relevant Resolution of the State Government pertaining to appeals involving cases of petty amount. The file was re-submitted to the Committee on 16.05.2016 and the committee under the Chairmanship of the Chief Engineer (SG) & Additional Secretary sanctioned proposal for the purpose of preferring appeals on 24.05.2016. Based on such recommendation of the Committee the concerned Department took decision on 02.07.2016, that appeals have to be filed against the decision of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vyara in this group of land reference cases. Accordingly, on 25.07.2016 Legal Department granted approval for preferring appeals and returned the files to the concerned Department for its onward action. The Office of the learned Government Pleader, High Court of Gujarat received Resolution of the Legal Department on 27.07.2016, but such Resolution and the papers annexed thereto did not contain certified copies of the judgment and award impugned. Hence by fax message dated 29.07.2016 the Office of the learned Government Pleader called upon the Executive Engineer of the local area to furnish certified copy. Upon necessary formalities certified copies were furnished to the learned Government Pleader. Thus, in the Page 13 of 29 HC-NIC Page 13 of 29 Created On Sat Aug 12 13:22:14 IST 2017 C/CA/11208/2016 CAV ORDER process, the delay as mentioned in the application had occurred. In the Additional Affidavit filed by the Mamlatdar & In-charge Deputy collector, Special Land Acquisition Office, Rehabilitation, Ukai Scheme, Unit-2, Songadh, Tapi, it is mentioned that an attempt was made to find out from the record of the case so as to explain the delay between January 2014 to August 2014. However, it is deposed that the attempt made has not resulted in any fruitful outcome to explain the movement of the Department during the aforesaid period.
16. Mr.Nirupam D. Nanavaty, learned senior counsel contended that even the delay as mentioned in the application is not correctly mentioned. According to him the delay is that of 981 days, not 774 days. For this purpose, he submits that in the Additional Affidavit filed in support of the Civil Application it is mentioned that the judgment of the District Court was delivered on 16.01.2014 and the fact came to the knowledge of the concerned Department in the month of June 2015. He submits that date of knowledge as mentioned in the application is not a correct reflection of facts and according to him certified copy of the impugned award was applied on 24.01.2014 and the same was provided to the opponents on 30.01.2014. He draws attention of this Court to Annexure R-1, to his Affidavit in Reply dated 01.04.2017, to indicate that the Office of the learned District Government Pleader had made application dated 24.01.2014 for certified copy of the impugned award.
Page 14 of 29
HC-NIC Page 14 of 29 Created On Sat Aug 12 13:22:14 IST 2017
C/CA/11208/2016 CAV ORDER
17. The Court may now proceed to consider the relevant judgments cited during the course of the arguments. Though several judgments/ orders have been cited many of the orders are pertaining to limitations prescribed under the Statute like Motor Vehicles Act, Arbitration Act, Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, or the Workmen's Compensation Act or Code of Criminal Procedure referring to revisional jurisdiction.
18. Discussion on the issue of condonation of delay in the cited judgments is as under:
(A) Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad Vs. Voltas Ltd, reported in 1994 (2) GLR 1325.
The Full Bench of this Court was considering the reference made to it on account of differences in two Division Bench judgments pertaining to condonation of delay. The principle laid down was that the courts are required to take liberal view considering the facts constituting sufficiency of cause on the basis of which condonation of delay was sought. The Bench held that the condonation of delay was necessarily within the discretionary jurisdiction of the court and the court concerned with the application for condonation of delay would necessarily exercise discretion judiciously in light of the well established principles and Page 15 of 29 HC-NIC Page 15 of 29 Created On Sat Aug 12 13:22:14 IST 2017 C/CA/11208/2016 CAV ORDER on appreciation of relevant facts. The Bench also proceeded to hold, while answering the question by a majority view, as under:
"31. The majority view (Per : M. B: Shah & Y. B. Bhatt, JJ.) is as under :
(1). The phrase 'sufficient cause' as occurring in Section 8 of the Limitation Act pertains to the establishment of the appropriate facts before the Court to which the Court can apply its mind and arrive at a conclusion regarding the sufficiency of the cause or otherwise. In essence, therefore, the phrase 'sufficient cause' is not a question of principle, but is a question of fact.
Hence, whether to condone the delay or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case as 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay depends only on the facts placed by the applicants before the Court;
(2). The plea, on the, part to the applicants that the delay was caused by 'administrative delay, administrative reasons/administrative procedure' (and analogous expressions) is merely an averment in the nature of a plea which by itself and ipso facto does not establish sufficiency of the cause for condonation. Precise factual reasons for the delay within the general ambit of the said phrase must be established and that too to the satisfaction of the Court. Hence, it cannot be held that, because the applicant is a Municipal Corporation or a statutory authority, delay should be condoned even if no reason or I cause for delay in filing appeal is mentioned in the application and mere mention of the phrase 'administrative delay' in the application for condonation of delay is no sufficient cause by any standard; (3). The merits of the substantial case in respect of which Page 16 of 29 HC-NIC Page 16 of 29 Created On Sat Aug 12 13:22:14 IST 2017 C/CA/11208/2016 CAV ORDER condonation is sought cannot over-ride the provisions of Sections 3 and 5 of the Limitation Act and the merits of the case cannot be regarded as the sole factor or a predominant factor while adjudicating upon the sufficiency of the cause for condonation of delay.
(4). Whether the delay is for a short period or a long period is of no consequence. If sufficient cause is shown, long delay can be condoned and if no cause is shown, even delay for a short period may not be condoned.
(5). The principle in law only is that the Courts are required to take a liberal view while considering the facts constituting the sufficiency of the cause, on the basis of which condonation of delay is sought. This does not necessarily amount to saying that all applications for condonation must be granted. This is necessarily within the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court, and the Court deciding the application for condonation would necessarily exercise its discretion judicially in 'the light of the well established principles, as regards the appreciation of the relevant facts." (B) Office of the Chief Post Master General & others Vs. Living Media Indian Ltd & another, reported in 2012 (1) GLH 670 (SC).
The Hon'ble Apex Court was considering whether the Office of the Chief Post Master General has shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the SLP before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also considered other two issues, mainly whether the Department has made out a case for Page 17 of 29 HC-NIC Page 17 of 29 Created On Sat Aug 12 13:22:14 IST 2017 C/CA/11208/2016 CAV ORDER interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to re- open the concurrent findings and the facts rendered by the High Court and while considering the previous judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and referring to the stage-wise movement of the file for taking decision to challenge the order, held that in absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, the delay is not to be condoned mechanically, merely because Government or a wing of the Government was a party before the Hon'ble Apex Court. It also held that where Government has reasonable or acceptable explanation for delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/ years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process.
(C) State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Amarnath Yadav, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 422.
Again the Hon'ble Apex Court declined to condone the delay due to un-explained delay.
(D) Basawaraj and others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 81.
The Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down as matter of principle that discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously Page 18 of 29 HC-NIC Page 18 of 29 Created On Sat Aug 12 13:22:14 IST 2017 C/CA/11208/2016 CAV ORDER based on the facts of each case and 'sufficient cause' cannot be liberally interpreted, if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fide is attributed to the party seeking condonation of delay. In this very judgment, after referring to several previous judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court has summarized the law on the issue as under:
"15. The law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature."
(E) Amalendu Kumar Bera and others Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 52.
Page 19 of 29
HC-NIC Page 19 of 29 Created On Sat Aug 12 13:22:14 IST 2017
C/CA/11208/2016 CAV ORDER
The Hon'ble Apex Court was considering whether the objections under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the State (judgment debtor) were dismissed twice and the revision was preferred by the State after lapse of 13 months against the second dismissal order along with application for condonation of delay. When the learned District Judge allowed the application for condonation, the High Court dismissed the revision application filed by the decree-holder holding specifically that the delay should be condoned by adopting liberal attitude towards the State. In these facts, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in absence of sufficient cause, liberal approach in case of State is not warranted, especially whether the State's action is marred by serious lapses and negligence in absence of sufficient cause. (F) Maniben Devraj Shah Vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, reported in (2012) 5 SCC 157.
The Hon'ble Apex Court was considering the case whether in filing the appeal, delay of more than 7 years had occurred which was attributed to administrative delay. The Court found that the explanation for delay was not specific but also found that the explanation, prima facie, is concocted and where the ground of transfer of advocate which allegedly caused an impediment for the Corporation to prosecute the proceedings diligently, such Page 20 of 29 HC-NIC Page 20 of 29 Created On Sat Aug 12 13:22:14 IST 2017 C/CA/11208/2016 CAV ORDER explanation was incomplete and not supported by the accurate information regarding dates, events, persons involved, etc. The Court did hold that no premium can be given for total lethargy or utter negligence of the State officers/ machinery/ agency/ instrumentality. The Court also held that substantive rights of the parties should not be ignored because of delay, but a distinction be drawn between the 'delay of a few days' and 'inordinate delay' which would cause prejudice to the other side. (G) Pundik Jalam Patel Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and another, reported in (2008) 17 SCC 448. The Hon'ble Apex Court was considering the question of delay condonation whether it was a case of abuse of process of court/ law/ fraud on the court by public authority which in its anxiety to get rid of bar of limitation resorted to taking up false plea. The Hon'ble Apex Court therefore, proceeded to hold as under:
"29. It needs no restatement at our hands that the object for fixing time limit for litigation is based on public policy fixing a life span for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in his jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy.
30. Public interest undoubtedly is a paramount Page 21 of 29 HC-NIC Page 21 of 29 Created On Sat Aug 12 13:22:14 IST 2017 C/CA/11208/2016 CAV ORDER consideration in exercising the courts discretion wherever conferred upon it by the relevant statutes. Pursuing stale claims and multiplicity of proceedings in no manner sub-serves public interest. Prompt and timely payment of compensation to the land losers facilitating their rehabilitation/resettlement is equally an integral part of public policy. Public interest demands that the State or the beneficiary of acquisition, as the case may be, should not be allowed to indulge in any act to unsettle the settled legal rights accrued in law by resorting to avoidable litigation unless the claimants are guilty of deriving benefit which otherwise not entitled in law in any fraudulent manner. One should not forget the basic fact that what is acquired is not the land but the livelihood of the land losers. These public interest parameters ought to be kept in mind by the courts while exercising the discretion dealing with the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Dragging the land losers to courts of law years after the termination of legal proceedings would not serve any public interest. Settled rights cannot be lightly interfered with by condoning inordinate delay without there being any proper explanation of such delay on the ground of involvement of public revenue. It serves no public interest.
31. It is true when the State and its instrumentalities are the applicants seeking condonation of delay they may be entitled to certain amount of latitude but the law of limitation is same for citizen and for Governmental authorities. Limitation Act does not provide for a different period to the government in Page 22 of 29 HC-NIC Page 22 of 29 Created On Sat Aug 12 13:22:14 IST 2017 C/CA/11208/2016 CAV ORDER filing appeals or applications as such. It would be a different matter where the Government makes out a case where public interest was shown to have suffered owing to acts of fraud or collusion on the part of its officers or agents and where the officers were clearly at cross purposes with it. In a given case if any such facts are pleaded or proved they cannot be excluded from consideration and those factors may go into the judicial verdict. In the present case, no such facts are pleaded and proved though a feeble attempt by the learned counsel for the respondent was made to suggest collusion and fraud but without any basis. We cannot entertain the submission made across the Bar without there being any proper foundation in the pleadings."
(H) In a decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another Vs. Mst.Katiji and others, reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down various principles for adopting liberal approach while considering sufficient cause.
1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.
2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.
3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean Page 23 of 29 HC-NIC Page 23 of 29 Created On Sat Aug 12 13:22:14 IST 2017 C/CA/11208/2016 CAV ORDER that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.
4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.
5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.
6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.
(I) In a decision rendered in the case of G. Ramegowda, Major and others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, reported in (1988) 2 SCC 142, "8. In litigations to which Government is a party there is yet another aspect which, perhaps, cannot be ignored. If appeals brought by Government are lost for such defaults, no person is individually affected; but what, in the ultimate analysis, suffers is public interest.
Page 24 of 29
HC-NIC Page 24 of 29 Created On Sat Aug 12 13:22:14 IST 2017
C/CA/11208/2016 CAV ORDER
The decisions of Government are collective and
institutional decisions and do not share the
characteristics of decisions of private individuals." (J) In the case of State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani and others, reported in (1996) 3 SCC 132, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that certain amount of latitude within reasonable limits is permissible having regard to impersonal bureaucratic setup involving red-tapism.
19. With the aforementioned, the Court may proceed to consider the facts which had emerged in this case.
20. Having taken into consideration the pleadings, the case papers and the arguments forwarded by the respective parties, this Court finds that the State Government is able to demonstrate that the State of Gujarat was from the beginning in the process of taking decision to prefer appeals or not and for that purpose the file has seen movement between Narmada Water Resources, Water Supply and Kalpasar Department, which is concerned Department and the local office from where proceedings of acquisition were initiated, then decision of the concerned Department to accept the impugned award and move the Finance Department for the purpose of budgetary allocation to satisfy the impugned award. However, it was the Finance Department which returned the file to the concerned Department for re-consideration after constituting sub-committee for the purpose and after the sub-committee was Page 25 of 29 HC-NIC Page 25 of 29 Created On Sat Aug 12 13:22:14 IST 2017 C/CA/11208/2016 CAV ORDER constituted on two occasions, decision to prefer appeal or not was considered and thereafter upon close scrutiny and financial implications, the committee gave opinion to prefer appeals. The decision of the committee was accepted by the concerned Department which thereafter, forwarded its proposal to the Legal Department for final approval to prefer appeals.
21. The major portion of the delay between the date of the impugned award and the date of knowledge of the award to the Department concerned with the acquisition process can be attributed only to any individual whose responsibility it was to embark upon the proceedings which are the natural consequences of the impugned award. The options available are either to accept the award and proceed to execute the same or to challenge the same. Nothing on record is pointed out about the steps taken by claimants also to get the award executed. Therefore, when there is a large time gap in the initiation of the action, but once action is initiated it is vigilantly followed and reasonably explained, then the initial time gap in initiating the action requires to be construed liberally.
22. In a given case, the reason behind lack of prompt action at local level can be attributed to several local factors prevailing at relevant time. These factors may not be within the control or knowledge of the Government Department at the State level. Hence such situation, if results in delay in initiating the process of Page 26 of 29 HC-NIC Page 26 of 29 Created On Sat Aug 12 13:22:14 IST 2017 C/CA/11208/2016 CAV ORDER filing appeal, if not inordinate, should not be permitted to act detrimental to the interest of the State at large.
23. What appears from the record is decision making body which was responsible to take decision regarding carrying the litigation in appeal was not made aware of the impugned decision, viz. the award of the Reference Court, immediately. This Court is of the view that such non-communication can be attributable to local parameters for which the State as a whole cannot be held responsible so as to deprive the State of an opportunity of agitating a legal right to challenge the award before higher forum. Moreover, considering the fact that huge tracts of land were acquired and so far as litigation of acquisition proceeding was in four different groups and each group consists of several references. All these groups have been decided on different dates as mentioned in the tabular form hereinabove. Therefore, the first award in a group of same acquisition was on 05.11.2014. Therefore, it was reasonable for the State in this case to wait for final outcome in each of the references so that a uniform stand can be taken in such group of litigations.
24. This Court is of the view that condonation of delay and permitting the State to proceed with the litigation would not, in any manner, cause any hardship to the claimants as in any case, the lands stood acquired for the public purpose.
Page 27 of 29
HC-NIC Page 27 of 29 Created On Sat Aug 12 13:22:14 IST 2017
C/CA/11208/2016 CAV ORDER
25. Therefore, in the aforesaid set of circumstances, this Court is persuaded to construe the delay liberally and accept the explanation given for the delay in preferring the appeal. These Civil Applications are therefore, required to be allowed.
26. Insofar as initial period when it is mentioned in the affidavit that existence of the impugned award was brought to the notice of the concerned Department, this Court would believe that such fact is stated on affidavit by a responsible officer of the Department and when after date of knowledge the department has vigilantly moved proposals along with necessary documents, this Court would not doubt the statement made on affidavit to accept that the date of actual knowledge of existence of the impugned award is that as is mentioned in the affidavit. The State of Gujarat being an impersonal machinery working through its officers, no mala fides can be presumed to put the State in a detrimental position where the State is desirous to agitate and pursue the remedy available under the provisions of law.
27. Therefore, the explanation given for the delay in preferring the appeals is accepted. The Civil Applications in all these First Appeals are required to be allowed and are hereby allowed. Delay of 744 days, 683 days, 622 days and 925 days in each batch of the First Appeals is hereby condoned. Rule is made absolute.
Page 28 of 29 HC-NIC Page 28 of 29 Created On Sat Aug 12 13:22:14 IST 2017 C/CA/11208/2016 CAV ORDER (ANANT S.DAVE, J.) (A.Y. KOGJE, J.) karim Page 29 of 29 HC-NIC Page 29 of 29 Created On Sat Aug 12 13:22:14 IST 2017