Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
(Ad) vs State Of West Bengal on 11 January, 2018
Author: Sanjib Banerjee
Bench: Sanjib Banerjee
1 S/L No.01 C.O. No.2504 of 2017 11.01.2018
Ct-16 Sri Gobinda Prasad Patra @ Gobinda Patra & Ors.
(AD) vs. State of West Bengal Mr. Ashis Sanyal, Adv.
Mr. Sanjib Bandyopadhyay. Adv.
... for the petitioners.
Mr. Hiranmoy Bhattacharya, Adv.
Mr. Ayan Banerjee. Adv.
... for the State.
The petition has been filed against an order dated July 19, 2017 by which the delay on the part of the State to prefer an appeal for a period of nearly 54 years has been condoned.
A suit was filed in 1962. The State failed to file its written statement within time and was allowed to file the written statement upon payment of a sum of Rs.10/-. The suit was decreed some time in August, 1963.
On the basis of the decree, the petitioners herein, or their predecessors-in-interest, approached the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in the year 2004 since the relevant land was not being recorded in the names of the petitioners or their predecessors. It is not in dispute that due notice of such proceedings before the LRTT was served on the State and the State was aware thereof by or about the year 2004.
The LRTT proceedings were concluded in 2014 and it was only in 2017 that it dawned on the State that an appeal ought to be preferred against a decree passed in the year 1963. No explanation worth its name is evident from the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 before the Appellate Court. It 2 appears that the Appellate Court was overwhelmed by the fact that the appellant was the State and that the land in question was alleged by the State to have vested in the State. It is inconceivable that the State would not assert its right within time and put up specious excuses as the lawyer responsible to conduct the suit on behalf of the State did not inform the State of the fate of the matter. Indeed, it was irresponsible on the part of the State to blame the lawyer since the State should have known that the lawyer who conducted the case on behalf of the State in the year 1963 may no longer be living. In any event, such excuse could not have been proferred in 2017 since the State was aware of the fate of the suit since 2004.
The Court may have been lenient if the State had sought to prefer the appeal immediately upon being served the papers pertaining to the LRTT matter in 2004. Instead, the State contested the matter before the LRTT and sought to prefer the appeal in the year 2017.
The State cannot be treated as a favoured or a special litigant. It is quite possible that a piece of land to which the petitioners herein have no right may have been lost to the State or may have been undeservingly found to belong to the petitioners herein or their predecessors-in-interest. However, the prescription of limitation is meant to do exactly that: give a quietus to a matter after the lapse of the prescribed period.
Since no explanation worth its name was carried by the State to the Appellate Court for seeking condonation of a delay of 54 years to prefer an appeal 3 from the decree passed in 1963, the order impugned dated July 19, 2017 is set aside and Title Appeal No.12 of 2017 filed before the District Judge, Purba Medinipore in respect of the decree of August 27, 1963 is dismissed.
C.O.2504 of 2017 is allowed as above.
There will be no order as to costs.
(Sanjib Banerjee, J.)