State of Orissa … v. Bharata Dehury and others
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK LAA No.128 of 2009 State of Orissa ….. Vs. Bharata Dehury and others ….. Appellant
Legal Reasoning
Mr. G. Rout, Adv. Respondents Mrs. J. Nayak, Adv. Order No. 11. CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
Decision
ORDER 10.01.2023 Misc. Case No.03 of 2010 and LAA No.128 of 2009 The matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Though the Appeal was filed on 26.11.2009, but the application for condonation of delay was filed on 06.01.2010 for condoning the delay of 371 days. However, as per the office note, the delay pointed out by the Stamp Reporter is 373 days. 3. Being noticed, the respondents have filed their Objection to the application for condonation of delay opposing to the prayer made in the Misc. Case on the ground that the stand taken by the Appellant for condonation of delay is false and frivolous and the Appellant-State has not approached this Court with due diligence and the grounds taken in the application for limitation are not good grounds. Hence, it has been prayed to dismiss both the limitation application as well as the Memorandum of Appeal with heavy cost. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the Parties. Page 1 of 4 5. Mr. Rout, learned Counsel for the State-Appellant submits that the delay caused in filing the Appeal is due to time taken by the observance of official procedure and same is neither intentional nor deliberate. He further submits that material on record has not been taken into consideration by the Court below while adjudicating the reference. Thus, Mr. Rout submits that the delay should not stand in the way for dismissal of the Appeal on merit. It is further submitted that the impugned award is exaggerated and requires interference of this Court. Hence, the application for condonation of delay should be allowed and Appeal be heard on merit. Mrs. J. Nayak, learned Counsel for the Respondents, on the other hand, submits that the time consumed in filing the Appeal cannot be a ground to condone the delay in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vrs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563 and further submits that inordinate delay has been caused by the State in filing of the Appeal and on the plea of observance of official procedure, the application needs no consideration. Thus, she prays for dismissal of the Misc. Case, so also Appeal. 6. Basing on the pleadings and evidence on record, the Court below, while adjudicating the reference, allowed the L.A. Misc. Case No.137 of 2007 on contest, but without cost and market price of the case land (Sarada-III Kissam) was determined and fixed at Rs.70,000/- only per acre with an observation that the Respondents are entitled to the enhanced compensation Page 2 of 4 accordingly together with all statutory benefits, including that as provided under Section 28 of the Act, whereby enhanced the compensation amount from Rs.52,500/- per acre to Rs.70,000/- per acre. 7. The apex Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General (supra) observed as under: “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 is a party before us. the Government or a wing of 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 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. their bodies, agencies 13) In our view, it is the right time to inform all the and government 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 Page 3 of 4 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 to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.” reasons sufficient 8. Also, in view of the recent judgment/order of this Court in the case of State of Odisha Vrs. Surama Manjari Das (W.P.(C) No.15763 of 2021 dismissed on 16.07.2021), which has been passed relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh Vrs. Bherulal, reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 849, this Appeal deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 9. Accordingly, the Misc. Case as well as Appeal stand dismissed. The awarded amount shall be released in favour of the claimants within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this Order on proper application after adjusting the amount already paid, if any, to the claimants towards compensation on proper application. Padma (S.K. MISHRA) JUDGE Page 4 of 4 Page 5 of 4