Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Tahsildar, Mangalagiri Mandal, ... vs Mangalagiri Pattana Padmasali ... on 25 November, 2020
Author: Battu Devanand
Bench: Battu Devanand
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
I.A.No.1 of 2018
IN
SECOND APPEAL NO.1356 of 2018
O R D E R:
This I.A.No.1 of 2018 has been filed praying to condone the delay of 669 days in filing the Second Appeal.
2) The Second Appeal is filed against the decree and judgment, dated 11.08.2015 in A.S.No.20 of 2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri in which the decree and judgment, dated 21.10.2014 in O.S.No.92 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri is reversed.
3) The petitioner is the 2nd defendant and the 1st respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.92 of 2012. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed in the original suit.
4) The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.92 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, seeking permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of the plaint schedule property.
5) The defendants resisted the claim of the plaintiff by filing written statements. The trial Court basing on the respective pleadings of both parties, after conducting trial, having heard 2 both sides, dismissed the suit by its decree and judgment, dated 21.10.2014 holding that the suit for bare injunction by the plaintiff without seeking declaratory relief in respect of the plaint schedule property is not maintainable when there is serious disputes with regard to the title of the plaint schedule property.
6) Aggrieved by the decree and judgment of the trial Court, the plaintiff filed an appeal under Section 96 of C.P.C. praying the Court to set aside the judgment of the trial Court and to grant permanent injunction against the defendants 1 and 2 and their men from ever interfering with the enjoyment and management of the plaint schedule property in any manner and for costs of the suit.
7) The 1st Appellate Court having heard the submissions of both parties and proper appreciation of the evidence available on record, allowed the appeal with costs holding that the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for and the decree and judgment in O.S.No.92 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri is reversed and the permanent injunction is granted restraining the defendants, their men and agents from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. 3
8) The unsuccessful 2nd defendant filed the present second appeal against the decree and judgment, dated 11.08.2015 in A.S.No.20 of 2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri. While filing the second appeal, an interlocutory application in I.A.No.1 of 2018 is filed seeking to condone the delay of 669 days in filing the second appeal.
9) As seen from the averments made in Para No.6 of the affidavit filed along with an application to condone the delay of 669 days in filing the Second Appeal are extracted hereunder:
"I submit that the 1st Appellate Court delivered the impugned Judgment in A.S.No.20 of 2014 on 11.08.2015. At the relevant point of time due to division of State and to construct new Capital at Amaravathi, Guntur District, the Andhra Pradesh Government formed the Capital Region Area Development to develop the capital city by acquiring the lands. For this purpose, land pooling scheme was introduced to acquire the lands and 7 villagers of Mangalagiri Mandal was comes under land pooling scheme, which is the half of the total Mangalagiri Mandal. Due to this acquisition proceedings the then Tahsilder and all staff were involved in acquisition proceedings as it involved lot of procedure such as comparing every land with 1B Registers, entering 4 agreements and considering the objections etc., due to which the then Tahsildar and staff did not noticed the passing impugned judgment. I joined duty as Tahsildar on 26.10.2017 FN. After joining duty in inspection of records I came to know about the impugned judgment and I requested the learned Asst. Government Pleader to obtain certified copies to file Second Appeal. In the said process there was delay of 669 days occurred in filing the present second appeal. The delay is neither willful nor wanton but due to the above said reasons. If this Hon'ble Court does not interfere and set aside, the State will be put to irreparable loss and hardship."
10) On behalf of the 1st respondent/plaintiff, a counter- affidavit has been filed resisting the contention of the 1st defendant/petitioner to condone the delay. The relevant paragraphs in the counter-affidavit are extracted hereunder:
"2. At the outset, it is respectfully submitted that, the above I.A. and filing of the Second appeal are misconceived and not maintainable either on facts or on Law and the Second Appeal itself is liable to be dismissed in limini. Moreover, the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the above I.A. do not disclose any valid reasons for condoning the huge 5 delay in filing the above Second Appeal. Apart from this, the delay of 669 days in filing the above Second Appeal is not correct. Actually the delay in filing the above second appeal is (1005) days, but not 669 days, since the judgment and decree passed by the Learned Lower Appellate Court in A.S.No.20 of 2014 is on 11.08.2015. Admittedly the copy application for obtaining the certified copy is filed on 06.04.2018 and the copy was made ready on 25.04.2018. Therefore, calculation made by the Petitioner/Appellant is incorrect and on this ground alone, the above petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.
7. With reference to the contentions of the Petitioner/Appellant in Paragraph No.6 of his affidavit that due to division of State, the then Tahsildar and all other staff were involved in those proceedings could not notice the judgment in A.S.No.20 of 2014 on 11.08.2015 is not correct and is totally invented for the purpose of this petition. The State was divided on 02.06.2014 and the judgment in A.S.No.20 of 2014 was delivered on 01.08.2015 i.e., more than one year of State division. As admitted by the Petitioner/ Appellant that he joined duty on 26.10.2017 and at the time of inspection of records, he found about the judgment of the above A.S.No.20 of 2014. But, 6 surprisingly the copy application was filed on 06.04.2018, that is almost one year after his inspection of records, which itself shows how the Petitioner/Appellant office is vigilant in prosecuting their cases, which fact is not correct. But due to pressure of local political leaders who are enemical against the 1st Respondent/1st Respondent Sangham, this second appeal is got filed, but not otherwise.
8. It is further submitted that, when this Petitioner/ Appellant requested the Assistant Government Pleader for filing certified copy of the judgment is not mentioned. He casually stated the facts in order to get the condonation of delay. As submitted supra, this delay petition and filing of the above second appeal are only due to political pressure but not otherwise. Therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed in limini."
11) Heard the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration appearing for the petitioner/2nd defendant and Sri K. Rajanna, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff.
12) The learned Government Pleader would submit that due to division of State and to construct new capital at Amaravati, Guntur District, the Government of Andhra Pradesh formed the 7 CRDA to develop the capital city by acquiring lands and for that purpose land pooling scheme was introduced to acquire lands in seven villagers of Mangalagiri Mandal. Due to this, the then Tahsildar and all staff were involved in that working process and due to which the then Tahsildar and staff did not notice the passing of impugned judgment. The Tahsildar who filed affidavit now joined duty on 26.10.2017 and after joining duty during the course of inspection of records, he came to know about the impugned judgment, thereafter, he requested the learned Asst. Government Pleader to obtain certified copies. Due to this administrative process the delay of 669 days was occurred in filing the present second appeal. He requested that if the delay is not condoned, the State will be put to irreparable loss and hardship.
13) On the other hand, Sri K. Rajanna, learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation petition, the reasons do not disclose any valid reasons for condoning the huge delay in filing the second appeal. The learned counsel also disputed that the delay of 669 days as submitted by the learned Government Pleader is not correct and the actual delay occurred is 1005 days. He also submits that bifurcation of the State was on 02.06.2014 and the 1st Appellate Court passed judgment in A.S.No.20 of 2014 on 11.08.2015 i.e., more than one year of State division. He also 8 point out that as per the admission of the present Tahsildar in his affidavit that he joined duty on 26.10.2017 and at the time of inspection of records, he noticed about the judgment in A.S.No.20 of 2014. But copy application was filed on 06.04.2018 i.e., almost one year after he noticed the judgment, dated 11.08.2015 in A.S.No.20 of 2014 which itself shows the bonafidies of the petitioner are not correct. He prayed to dismiss the interlocutory application as it is not maintainable either on facts or on Law.
14) Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both sides and upon perusing the material available on record, the following facts are noted:
(i) The Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, passed decree and judgment, dated 21.10.2014 in O.S.No.92 of 2012, dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff;
(ii) The Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagir, passed decree and judgment, dated 11.08.2015 in A.S.No.20 of 2014 filed by the plaintiff was allowed;
(iii) Copy application was filed by the 2nd defendant on 06.04.2018 to obtain certified copies in A.S.No.20 of 2014;
(iv) Copy of the decree and judgment, dated 11.08.2015 in A.S.No.20 of 2014 was made ready and delivered on 25.04.2018;
9
(v) The Second Appeal was filed in the High Court on 10.09.2018.
(vi) Along with the second appeal, I.A.No.1 of 2018 was filed seeking condonation of delay of 669 days in filing the second appeal.
(vii) As per the contention of the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, the delay occurred in filing the second appeal is 1005 days, but not 669 days as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
15) Since learned counsel for the 1st respondent seriously objected in filing the Second Appeal after inordinate and huge delay of 1005 days, this Court intends to examine whether there is any sufficient cause for the condonation of huge delay, in the light of the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court relied by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent.
16) The learned counsel for the 1st respondent stated in his brief note which was filed under USR No.29358 of 2020 that in view of the COVID-19, since our Hon'ble High Court is not functioning of physical appearance, therefore, the present brief note is being uploaded along with enclosing the decided and reported judgments on delay of condonation of cases for kind perusal of this Court. Though, he mentioned five citations in brief note, only one judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of 10 India in office of Chief Post Master General and others was uploaded.
17) In the case of Office of Chief Post Master General and others vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another1 the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a petition filed for condonation of delay of 427 days after considering various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, observed as extracted hereunder:
12. 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. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department 1 2012 LawSuit (SC) 124 11 cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government.
13. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process.
The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.
12
18) In another judgment relied by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while dealing with an application to condone the delay of 663 days, came down heavily, while dismissing the said application in The State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Bherulal2 as extracted hereunder:
6. We are also of the view that the aforesaid approach is being adopted in what we have categorized earlier as "certificate cases". The object appears to be to obtain a certificate of dismissal from the Supreme Court to put a quietus to the issue and thus, say that nothing could be done because the highest Court has dismissed the appeal.
It is to complete this formality and save the skin of officers who may be at default that such a process is followed. We have on earlier occasions also strongly deprecated such a practice and process. There seems to be no improvement. The purpose of coming to this Court is not to obtain such certificates and if the Government suffers losses, it is time when the concerned officer responsible for the same bears the consequences. The irony is that in none of the cases any action is taken against the officers, who sit on the files and do nothing. It is presumed that this Court will condone the delay and even in making submissions, straight away counsels appear to address on merits 2 2020 SCC OnLine SC 849 13 without referring even to the aspect of limitation as happened in this case till we pointed out to the counsel that he must first address us on the question of limitation.
7. We are thus, constrained to send a signal and we propose to do in all matters today, where there are such inordinate delays that the Government or State authorities coming before us must pay for wastage of judicial time which has its own value. Such costs can be recovered from the officers responsible.
8. Looking to the period of delay and the casual manner in which the application has been worded, we consider appropriate to impose costs on the petitioner- State of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee. The amount be deposited in four weeks. The amount be recovered from the officers responsible for the delay in filing the special leave petition and a certificate of recovery of the said amount be also filed in this Court within the said period of time.
19) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Postmaster General and others vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another3 wherein it is held as hereunder:
"28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross 3 1992 (3) SCC 563 14 negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government.
29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few."
20) The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while dealing with an application to condone the delay of 916 days caused in 15 preferring an appeal in case of University of Delhi vs. Union of India (UOI) and others4 held as hereunder:
20. From a consideration of the view taken by this Court through the decisions cited supra the position is clear that, by and large, a liberal approach is to be taken in the matter of condonation of delay. The consideration for condonation of delay would not depend on the status of the party namely the Government or the public bodies so as to apply a different yardstick but the ultimate consideration should be to render even handed justice to the parties. Even in such case the condonation of long delay should not be automatic since the accrued right or the adverse consequence to the opposite party is also to be kept in perspective. In that background while considering condonation of delay, the routine explanation would not be enough but it should be in the nature of indicating "sufficient cause" to justify the delay which will depend on the backdrop of each case and will have to be weighed carefully by the Courts based on the fact situation. In the case of Katiji (Supra) the entire conspectus relating to condonation of delay has been kept in focus. However, what cannot also be lost sight is that the consideration therein was in the background of dismissal of the application seeking condonation of delay in a case where there was delay of four days pitted against the 4 2020(1) ALT 230 16 consideration that was required to be made on merits regarding the upward revision of compensation amounting to 800 per cent.
21. As against the same, the delay in the instant facts in filing the LPA is 916 days and as such the consideration to condone can be made only if there is reasonable explanation and the condonation cannot be merely because the appellant is public body. The entire explanation noticed above, depicts the casual approach unmindful of the law of limitation despite being aware of the position of law.
21) Whether the reasons stated in the affidavit filed by the petitioner for the delay caused in filing the Second Appeal would establish 'sufficient cause' for the condonation of such a huge delay or not to be examined in the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court as stated supra.
22) As seen from the material available on record, it appears that though the 1st Appellate Court passed decree and judgment on 11.08.2015, the petitioner filed copy application to obtain the judgment copy only on 06.04.2018. The reasons stated in the affidavit filed by the petitioner that at the relevant point of time due to bifurcation of the State and to construct new capital at Amaravati, Guntur District and in view of the formation of the Capital Regional Development Authority Agency to develop the 17 capital city by acquiring the land and to acquire the land for that purpose under land pooling scheme, the then Tahsildar and all staff were involved in land acquisition proceedings and due to which the then Tahsildar and staff did not notice the passing of impugned judgment. In the opinion of this Court, it is not a plausible and acceptable explanation.
23) Admittedly, the bifurcation of the State was came into force on 02.06.2014 and the 1st Appellate Court delivered the judgment in A.S.No.20 of 2014 on 11.08.2015. The present Tahsildar, who deposed this affidavit, stating that he joined duty on 26.10.2017 FN and after he joining duty in inspection of records, he came to know about the impugned judgment and he requested the learned Asst. Government Pleader to obtain certified copies to file the Second Appeal. In fact, it is the duty and responsibility of the Government Pleader/Asst. Government Pleader, who attended that case in Appellate Court has to file copy application in time as per the procedure contemplated under law to obtain judgment copy from the Court. It is his duty to obtain judgment copy from the Court and to hand over to his client along with his opinion. But it appears till 06.04.2018 copy application was not filed. There is no any averment in the affidavit filed by the petitioner stating that whether any action initiated against the concerned Government Pleader/Asst. Government Pleader or not. This contention of 18 the petitioner is also not convincing this Court due to the reason that there is a gap of nearly six months thereafter in filing the copy application itself and it clearly establishes from the record that though copy of the decree and judgment was furnished on 25.04.2018, the Second Appeal was filed only on 10.09.2018 i.e., after five months thereafter. It is further to be noted that though it was mentioned that the deponent of this affidavit i.e., present Tahsildar joined duty on 26.10.2017 FN, there is no proper and acceptable explanation why his predecessor did not take proper action after judgment delivered by the 1st Appellate Court on 11.08.2015. As such, it appears that there is no proper and acceptable explanation for not applying for certified copies of decree and judgment, dated 11.08.2015 within a reasonable time.
24) Admittedly, the date of judgment is 11.08.2015 and the fact remains that the certified copy was applied only on 06.04.2018. The other reasons mentioned in the affidavit which were already extracted as above, clearly proves that there was delay at every stage and there is no proper explanation as to why such huge delay had occurred. Though it was stated by the petitioner that the delay was neither willful nor wanton, but due to the reasons stated in the affidavit the fact remains that the concerned officers are failed in taking appropriate steps to 19 file the appeal within the time by following due procedure as provided under law.
25) This Court also noticed the conduct of the petitioner in approaching this Court by filing the Second Appeal even without calculating the correct delay occurred in filing the appeal. In the affidavit they mentioned there was a delay of 669 days. As the dispute raised by the learned counsel for the respondent with regard to the days of delay occurred in filing the second appeal, this Court before delivering this order, made calculation with regard to actual delay occurred through the Section Officer, Second Appeals Wing, and as per her calculation, there is a delay of 1016 days in filing the second appeal. It itself proves how the concerned officers in diligence in prosecuting the matter before this Court. As such, this Court opines that there was gross negligence and deliberate inaction on the part of the officers concerned i.e., the present Tahsildar and his predecessor in filing this appeal with a huge and inordinate delay. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court the claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology cannot be accepted and the law of limitation binds everybody including the Government.
26) For the above mentioned reasons, this Court holds that there is no any "sufficient cause" for the condonation of such a huge delay. Accordingly, the application filed for condonation of 20 delay of 1016 days in filing the Second Appeal is hereby dismissed.
27) In view of the routine, casual and mechanical approach in which the application for condonation of huge delay of 1016 days has been filed and for wastage of judicial time which has its own value as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bherulal's case (2nd supra), in the considered opinion of this Court, it appropriate to follow the said judgment in the present case to impose costs on the petitioner.
28) The petitioner shall pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) as costs to the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority within four (04) weeks and a certificate of payment of costs to be filed before this Court. The said amount be recovered from the officers responsible for the delay in filing the Second Appeal. The intention of this Court to make the concerned officers as responsible is to send a signal to all Government Officers, who are discharging public duties by taking public money towards their salaries to ensure to discharge their duties with more diligence, care and accountability while dealing the cases in various Courts.
29) Accordingly, the I.A.No.1 of 2018 is dismissed. 21 S.A.No.1356 of 2018 J U D G M E N T:
In view of the dismissal of I.A.No.1 of 2018, the Second Appeal shall stand dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this petition shall stand closed.
Before concluding this judgment, this Court also intends to express its displeasure and unhappy towards the negligent attitude of the Judicial Wing Officers of the High Court Registry in processing the Second Appeal without calculating the actual delay occurred in filing it. Therefore, the Registrar General of this High Court is directed to issue necessary instructions to the Judicial Wing Officers to be more cautious during the scrutiny and processing of the cases in future.
______________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND Dt. 25.11.2020 PGR Note:-
Copy of the order be communicated to the Registrar General, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati forthwith.