High Court
Facts
ca-13740-2023.odt(1)IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCIVIL APPLICATION NO.13740 OF 2023 IN RAST/31454/2023 IN WP/3806/2020The Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Division No.1,Aurangabad Through Umesh S/o Vishwanathrao Wankhede, Age: 42 Years, Occ. Service at Sinchan Bhavan, Jalna Road, Aurangabad...Applicant(Ori. Respondent No.5)Versus1.Murlidhar S/o Rama Veer (Died)through Legal Representatives1.A. Suman Wd/O Murlidhar VeerAge: -55 years, Occu:-Household1.B. Kailash Murlidhar VeerAge:-38 years, Occu:- Agri.1.C. Vilas Viuriidhar VeerAge:-35, Occu:- Agri.1.D. Deepak Muriidhar VeerAge:-33, Occu:- Agri.[1-A To i-D ali R/o Golaragaon, Tq. and Dist-Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.(Aurangabad)]2.Shyamrao S/o Rama VeerAge: 60 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Golatgaon, Taluka and District: Aurangabad3.Dagadu S/o Rama VeerAge: 69 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Golatgaon, Taluka and District: Aurangabad4.Ashok S/o Gunjaba Dhongade
Legal Reasoning
ca-13740-2023.odt(9)prima facie established that the lands acquired were perennial orseasonal irrigated lands. There is absolutely no sufficient ground tocondone the delay and keep the contesting respondents/agriculturistsaway from their statutory right to get the compensation. He alsovehemently argued that not a single paper is placed on record to showthe bona fide that they are pursuing the matter with higherauthorities for getting sanction and necessary approvals. Therefore,the bare words are not sufficient to believe the applicants.9.It is trite the Court should adopt a liberal, pragmatic,justice-oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with anapplication for condonation of delay. The Courts are not supposed tolegalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. Thecondonation has been sought mainly on the ground that the petitionerspent time over for getting sanction and approval from theauthorities. However, no details of such communication has beenexplained in the application. The delay is inordinate. Therefore, theapplicant was supposed to explain the sufficient cause. The Hon’bleSupreme Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee (supra) has laid theprinciple applicable to the application for condonation of delay. Oneprinciple was that the term “sufficient cause” should be understood intheir proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to thefact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied inproper perspective to the obtaining fact situation. The rule giving the ca-13740-2023.odt(10)acceptable latitude to the State could not be as straight jacketformula. The State has to bring the material before the Court tobelieve that there was sufficient cause for not approaching the Courtin time. Such latitude could not be granted mechanically moreparticularly without supporting material. The petitioner only being aState could not be given a different treatment for the reasons that theHon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition,Anantnag (supra) has laid down the law that the rule of condonationof delay is irrelevant and different for the State and private party.There is no warrant for according a stepmotherly treatment when the'State' is the applicant praying for condonation of delay. 10.The case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (supra) wouldalso not help the petitioner because there was a huge delay. Thoughthe Court should take liberal view while condoning the delay in caseof State, it is not supported with the official action. 11.The brief facts of the writ petition needs to be producedto understand the view expressed in the judgment under review. Theacquisition proceeding was declared lapsed. Then the applicantsoffered the petitioners to purchase their lands directly by privatenegotiation on inviting their consents. Accordingly, the consent wasgiven. The District Level Compensation Determination Committeewas constituted to determine the compensation. In the meeting dated30.06.2017, the Committee had approved the rates proposed therein. ca-13740-2023.odt(11)In another meeting dated 11.10.2017, a detailed report wassubmitted and the rates were determined. After the saiddetermination, the petitioner requested the Committee to review therates. Without any communication for hearing to the petitioner, theCommittee determined the rates on 24.04.2018 and finally, revisedthe rate on 29.08.2018. The petition was allowed considering noopportunity of hearing was granted to contesting respondents andconsidering the dispute over the type of land. The Committee wasagain directed to re-determine the compensation. Thereafter, theCommittee had passed the award of which the applicant appears to beaggrieved of. 12.We have gone through the submissions of the respectivecounsels and satisfied that in the absence of any cogent and reliablematerial, it could not be believed that there was a sufficient cause innot preferring the review application in time. Even there is also noexplanation to satisfy the Court that the delay was not deliberate.The ground of opening the flood gates was also raised in the writpetition in which the judgment under review was passed. The writpetition was restricted to the petitioners only and on the basis of thefacts, they were claiming that their lands were irrigated. However,the Committee erroneously considered it Jirayat land. We are notsatisfied with the grounds of the application. Hence, we pass thefollowing order :
Arguments
ca-13740-2023.odt(2)Age: 51 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Golatgaon, Taluka and District: Aurangabad5.Shobhabai Govind KahiteAge: 54 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. At: Lalwadi, Post: Golatgaon, Taluka and District: Aurangabad6.Ramkorabai Bharat KahiteAge: 51 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. At: Lalwadi, Post: Golatgaon, Taluka and District: Aurangabad7.Shamsing S/o Shivlal KahiteAge: 49 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. At: Lalwadi, Post: Golatgaon, Taluka and District: Aurangabad8.Rupchand S/o Jayram KahiteAge: 74 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. At: Lalwadi, Post: Golatgaon, Taluka and District: Aurangabad9.The State of MaharashtraThrough its Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.10. The Divisional Commissioner,Aurangabad.11.The Collector,Aurangabad.12. Special Land Acquisition Officer/Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Krishna Khore Vikas Mahamandal, Aurangabad...Respondents...Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, Senior Counsel i/bMr. Shyam C. AroraAGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.D. GhayalAdvocate for Respondent Nos.1A to 1D, 2 to 8 : Mr. B.R. KedarAdvocate for Applicant in CA/486/2024 : Ms. Anjali Dube ... ca-13740-2023.odt(3) CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT & S.G. MEHARE, JJ. RESERVED ON : MARCH 11, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : MARCH 18, 2025ORDER :1.The applicant/original respondent no.5 in writ petitionhas preferred this application for condonation of delay caused inpreferring the review of the judgment and order of this Bench passedin Writ Petition No.2806 of 2020 dated 09.12.2021.2.The applicants are seeking condonation of delay of 552days mainly on the ground that much time has been spent overobtaining the necessary sanctions and opinions from the superiorauthorities and its department as well as the legal opinion from thecompetent authority. The another ground for condonation of delaywas that the higher authorities made the correspondence with theCollector, Aurangabad over the subject matter by confining to theaspect of execution of the sale deed by the petitioners by giving theirconsent and by also confining the fact that revival of the rate of landat a higher rate would cause sevexre financial loss to the StateGovernment and it would open the flood gate of claims. The groundwhich is very casual raised is of no information by the counselrepresenting the present petitioner. However, during the course ofarguments, the petitioner did not press into service the said ground.Orally, it has been argued that the Collector was proposed to file the ca-13740-2023.odt(4)review application. Therefore, the applicant was under impressionthat the Government would file the review application. However, theGovernment did not file the review application as there wasinordinate delay. The applicant has good grounds on merit in reviewparticularly on the ground that respondent nos.1 to 8 had submittedthe written consent on 25.09.2018 for accepting the rates of Jirayatlands and thereafter, executing the registered sale deeds on10.01.2019. 3.The contesting respondent nos.1 to 8 have filed theirreply and strongly opposed the application. Narrating the brief factsof the petition, the application is mainly opposed contending that thefailure of the counsel to intimate them is without his affidavit. Thecompensation is to be paid without interest and the applicant isbeneficiary. Hence, they are deliberately delaying the payment ofcompensation of the land. This Court has considered the factum ofnot granting an opportunity while reducing the compensation and nonotice of such meeting was given to them. The Committee hasconcluded that the lands acquired were perennial and seasonalirrigated lands. Therefore, the compensation has to be paid for thesame category. The ground of spending time over obtaining thesanction has also been assailed contending that on 28.09.2022, theSub Divisional Officer i.e. the SLAO had communicated to theapplicant by reminder letter No.1 that the review application against ca-13740-2023.odt(5)the impugned judgment and order is to be filed within 15 days bygiving personal attendance in the matter, in consonance of which theSub Divisional Engineer communicated to the applicant on24.11.2022 that Advocate Mr. Arora has been appointed to file reviewand by supplying the documents to him necessary steps be takenwithin the time limit. However, after around ten months, this reviewapplication has been filed. For this ten months, the applicant has noexplanation. Day-to-day delay has not been explained. There is nojustifiable ground to condone the delay. The delay is not deliberatenor intentional is not sufficient to be condoned. There is no sufficientcause mentioned in the application. 4.Learned senior counsel Mr. Deshmukh has vehementlyargued that the petitioners have good case on merit. The applicant isa State. Normally, the State has to obtain various sanctions from thehigher authorities to file the petitions. The same procedure wasfollowed and the time was spent. There is no deliberate andintentional delay in preferring the review application. To bolster hisarguments, he relied on the case of Esh a Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others , (2013) 12 SCC 649, Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr Vs. Mst.Katiji and Others, AIR 1987 SUPREME COURT 1353, Indian OilCorporation Ltd and Ors Vs. Subrata Borah Chowlek and others, 2010(14) SCC 419, N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, AIR 1998 ca-13740-2023.odt(6)SUPREME COURT 3222 and Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumariand Others, AIR 1969 SUPREME COURT 575. Relying on these caselaws, he vehemently argued that the State or a public body or anentity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptablelatitude while considering the delay condonation application. Thereshould be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-pedanticapproach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay,for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged toremove injustice. Day-to-day delay is not required to be explained.Huge public money has been involved in the matter. The exorbitantrates have been decided by the Committee without considering theburden on the Government Exchequer and opening the flood gates ofidentical claims. He also argued that ‘everyday delay must beexplained’ does not mean that the pedantic approach should be made.The Court should be liberal while condoning the delay in case of Statewhich depends upon its officials for its action. Here, the petitioner isa State. So, the time spent for official formalities could not beconsidered deliberate and negligence. There was no negligence norinaction nor malafide. Therefore, the doctrine of ‘sufficient cause’would not apply. He also argued that if the application is allowed, noserious prejudice would be caused to the contesting respondents. Thepetitioner showing his bonafide has deposited 50% of the estimatedcompensation as per the Court's order. Considering the facts in toto, ca-13740-2023.odt(7)the delay caused in preferring the review application deserves to becondoned.5.Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Kedar for the contestingrespondents has vehemently argued that the judgment under reviewwas passed on 09.12.2021. On 15.12.2021, the respondents made arepresentation to implement. Referring to the judgment and orderunder review, he submits that the petition was allowed since therevised compensation award passed was without giving themopportunity of ascertaining the fact. Since the orders were notcomplied with, the contempt proceeding was filed and six monthsthereafter, this delay condonation application is filed. Since thecontempt was filed, it cannot be said that the applicant was unawareof the judgment under review. While determining the compensationby the Committee, present applicant was the member to thatCommittee. The Committee decided the issue pursuant to the orderunder review. Therefore also, it cannot be said that there is nodeliberate delay. It was a complete inaction of the applicant in nottaking the decision appropriately. 6.The contention that since the Government wasconsidering to file the review application they did not move ahead isunsustainable. The applicants are benefited by protracting the matter.Hence, no delay could be condoned. The application is not bonafide.It is a sheer negligence of the applicant. Referring to the case of Esha ca-13740-2023.odt(8)Bhattacharjee (supra), relied upon by the applicant, he would arguethat lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation ofdelay is a significant and relevant fact. The concept of liberalapproach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and itcannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. The applicant beinga State, no different rule could be applied. The explanation offered isconcocted and fanciful. No delay could be condoned. It is anincreasing tendency to perceive delay in executing the judgment andorders. 7.He also referred to the case of Collector Land Acquisition,Anantnag (supra) and argued that there must be sufficient cause tocondone the delay. The applicant being a State seeking condonationof delay is altogether irrelevant and the rule of sufficient cause is notexcluded. 8.Referring to the communication disclosed in his replydated 24.11.2022, he has vehemently argued that though thepetitioner appointed the lawyer, the application was not filed at theearliest. Such a conduct shows the negligence and taking it forgranted that the delay would be condoned howsoever long it is. Healso argued that the object behind filing such application is to delaythe payment of compensation to the poor agriculturists and it is thesubstantial ground to reject the application. A recent award passedby the Committee is based upon the applicant’s own document which
Decision
ca-13740-2023.odt(12)ORDER(i)The application stands dismissed.(ii)No order as to costs. (S.G. MEHARE,, J.) (R.G. AVACHAT, J.)Mujaheed//