Executive Engineer, Latur v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 02 Dec 2011
- Bench
- A V POTDAR
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. In the light of the above observations and considering the fact that the public money is involved in these matters, the delay, albeit, enormous, needs to be condoned. Consequently, the applications are allowed and the delay the condoned. khs/DEC.2011/ca5403-11 (A.V.POTDAR, J.)
Judgment
FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.8897 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5407 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.8904 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5409 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.8882 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5411 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.8888 OF 2011 Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Division VERSUS APPLICANTS State of Maharashtra and another RESPONDENTS 2 and others Civil Application no.5403 of 2011 Mr.B.R.Surwase, learned counsel for the applicants. Mrs.V.A.Shinde, learned A.G.P. for respondent State (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 02/12/2011 PER COURT :
By these applications, the applicant / acquiring body has prayed for condonation of delay of 1087 days in preferring first appeals. While disclosing the reasons for delay, it is asserted that the delay has been caused due to legal opinion provided to the acquiring body. It is further submitted that the Reference Court has awarded rental compensation contrary to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the ratio laid down in “R.L.Jain Versus Delhi Development Authority” AIR 2004 SC 1904.
Recently, the Apex Court has taken a view, in “State of Karnataka versus Y.Moideen Kunhi” AIR 2009 SC 2577, that, “the expression ‘sufficient cause’ as appearing in Section 5 of The Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (in short the ‘Limitation Act’) must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice as was noted by this Court in G.Ramegowda, Major etc. V. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Banglore (AIR 1988 SC 897), para no.8 of the judgment reads as follows.
The law of limitation is no doubt, the same for a private citizen as per governmental authorities. 3 and others Civil Application no.5403 of 2011 Government, like any other litigant must take responsibility for the acts or omissions of its officers. But a somewhat different complexion is imparted to the matter where Government makes out a case where public interest was shown to have suffered owing to acts of fraud or bad faith on the part of its officers or agents and where the officers were clearly at cross- purposes with it.
It is observed that -
certain cases are classic example where the circumstances are the same, where the excessive lands are involved out of which according to the State some were acquired by the State for the public purpose. The same cannot be rendered ineffective by skillful management of delay in the process of making challenge to the order which prima facie does not appear to be legally sustainable.
In the light of the above observations and considering the fact that the public money is involved in these matters, the delay, albeit, enormous, needs to be condoned. Consequently, the applications are allowed and the delay the condoned. khs/DEC.2011/ca5403-11
(A.V.POTDAR, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Land Acquisition Act; Limitation Act, 1963 — s. 5.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 02 Dec 2011. The bench was A V POTDAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.