TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 1219
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nst the award of the Reference Court. The appeals are arising out of the same acquisition proceedings and hence below mentioned groups of Civil applications are taken up for hearing jointly. However, for the purpose of convenience, facts are drawn from the first batch of applications, viz. Civil Applications No.11208 - 11215 of 2016. Sl.No. Delay in number of days Civil Application No. Land Acquisition Reference Case No. and date of Impugned award 2012 dated 16.01.2014 dated 05.11.2014 dated 16.01.2014 2. These Civil Applications are filed for condonation of delay of 744 days, which had occurred in filing the First Appeals by the State of Gujarat against the judgment and award rendered by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vyara dated 16.01.2014 in Land Reference Cases No.148 to 155 of 2012. 3. For the public purpose of construction of High Level Contour Canal, notification under section 4 was published on 17.04.2008 for acquisition of land situated at Village Kanpura, Taluka Vyara, District Tapi for which Special Land Acquisition Officer passed award on 27.09.2011 and declared compensation at the rate of Rs. 28/- per square meter. 4. Not being satisfied....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned the proposal for the purpose of preferring an appeal. 02/07/16 Narmada Water Resources, Water Supply and Kalpasar Department decided to file an appeal. 19/07/16 Revenue Department approved the proposal of filing an appeal and the file was forwarded to Legal Department. 27/07/16 Instruction issued to Superintending Engineer,Ukai Circle (Civil),Ukai to contact the Office of the Government Pleader for initiating process of filing First Appeal. 15/09/16 Office of the Government Pleader received detailed Record & Proceedings of the land reference case. 23/09/16 First Appeal filed with delay of 744 days. 7. The learned Assistant Government Pleader (AGP) appearing on behalf of the State submits that the delay which had occurred in preferring the appeals is merely on account of procedure required to be followed and that on account of financial implication, Government had to decide to constitute a committee especially with reference to resolution of the State Government regarding preferring appeals where petty amount is involved. He submits that the Government by its resolution had constituted such committee. Said committee has undertaken the exercise of examining the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....SCC 422. Paras 2 and 3 are relied on. (xii) Basawaraj and others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 81. Paras 12 to 15 are relied on. (xiii) Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Amateur Riders Club, reported in 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 603. Paras 2 and 3 are relied on. (xiv) Amalendu Kumar Bera and others Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 52. Para is relied on. Paras 9 and 10 are relied on. (xv) Kumar and others Vs. Karnataka Industrial Cooperative Bank Ltd and others, reported in (2013) 11 SCC 668. Para 7 is relied on. (xvi) Maniben Devraj Shah Vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, reported in (2012) 5 SCC 157. Paras 14, 15, 25 and 29 are relied on. (xvii) Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, reported in (2011) 14 SCC 578. Para 5 is relied on. (xviii) Pundik Jalam Patel Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and another, reported in (2008) 17 SCC 448. Paras 17 to 20 are relied on. 10. Mr.Nirupam D. Nanavaty, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- claimants has also relied upon the Circular issued by the Government of Gujarat, Legal Department dated 09.02.2015, pursuant to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t and the local office of the concerned Department, communications between the concerned Department and the Office of the Deputy Collector, Rehabilitation and the communications between the concerned Department and the Legal Department for undertaking the process of preferring appeals. 14. Considering the financial implication of the case, decision was taken by the concerned Department to forward the file to the Finance Department for sanction of grant under the Budget Head- 8674 and for the same on 23.11.2015 Special Secretary, Narmada Water Resources, Water Supply and Kalpasar Department granted sanction to forward the file before the Finance Department. Accordingly on 02.12.2015 the file was submitted to the Finance Department (Budget Branch). 15. On the other hand the concerned Department has also sought opinion from the Deputy Collector, Rehabilitation- cum- Special Land Acquisition Officer by letter dated 07.12.2015 and the Deputy Collector, Rehabilitation furnished his opinion vide communication dated 06.01.2016. The Finance Department returned the file on 22.01.2016 with instructions to constitute a committee and that file was required to be submitted after scrutiny by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lication is not correctly mentioned. According to him the delay is that of 981 days, not 774 days. For this purpose, he submits that in the Additional Affidavit filed in support of the Civil Application it is mentioned that the judgment of the District Court was delivered on 16.01.2014 and the fact came to the knowledge of the concerned Department in the month of June 2015. He submits that date of knowledge as mentioned in the application is not a correct reflection of facts and according to him certified copy of the impugned award was applied on 24.01.2014 and the same was provided to the opponents on 30.01.2014. He draws attention of this Court to Annexure R-1, to his Affidavit in Reply dated 01.04.2017, to indicate that the Office of the learned District Government Pleader had made application dated 24.01.2014 for certified copy of the impugned award. 17. The Court may now proceed to consider the relevant judgments cited during the course of the arguments. Though several judgments/ orders have been cited many of the orders are pertaining to limitations prescribed under the Statute like Motor Vehicles Act, Arbitration Act, Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, or the Wor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeal is mentioned in the application and mere mention of the phrase 'administrative delay' in the application for condonation of delay is no sufficient cause by any standard; (3). The merits of the substantial case in respect of which condonation is sought cannot over-ride the provisions of Sections 3 and 5 of the Limitation Act and the merits of the case cannot be regarded as the sole factor or a predominant factor while adjudicating upon the sufficiency of the cause for condonation of delay. (4). Whether the delay is for a short period or a long period is of no consequence. If sufficient cause is shown, long delay can be condoned and if no cause is shown, even delay for a short period may not be condoned. (5). The principle in law only is that the Courts are required to take a liberal view while considering the facts constituting the sufficiency of the cause, on the basis of which condonation of delay is sought. This does not necessarily amount to saying that all applications for condonation must be granted. This is necessarily within the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court, and the Court deciding the application for condonation would necessarily exercise its ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature." (E) Amalendu Kumar Bera and others Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 52. The Hon'ble Apex Court was considering whether the objections under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the State (judgment debtor) were dismissed twice and the revision was preferred by the State after lapse of 13 months against the second dismissal order along with applic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy. 30. Public interest undoubtedly is a paramount consideration in exercising the courts discretion wherever conferred upon it by the relevant statutes. Pursuing stale claims and multiplicity of proceedings in no manner sub-serves public interest. Prompt and timely payment of compensation to the land losers facilitating their rehabilitation/resettlement is equally an integral part of public policy. Public interest demands that the State or the beneficiary of acquisition, as the case may be, should not be allowed to indulge in any act to unsettle the settled legal rights accrued in law by resorting to avoidable litigation unless the claimants are guilty of deriving benefit which otherwise not entitled in law in any fraudulent manner. One should not forget the basic fact that what is acquired is not the land but the livelihood of the land losers. These public interest parameters ought to be kept in mind by the courts while exercising the discretion dealing with the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Dragging the land losers to courts of law years after the termination of legal proceedings would not serve any pub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. (I) In a decision rendered in the case of G. Ramegowda, Major and others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, reported in (1988) 2 SCC 142, "8. In litigations to which Government is a party there is yet another aspect which, perhaps, cannot be ignored. If appeals brought by Government are lost for such defaults, no person is individually affected; but what, in the ultimate analysis, suffers is public interest. The decisions of Government are collective and institutional decisions and do not share the characteristics of decisions of private individuals." (J) In the case of State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani and others, reported in (1996) 3 SCC 132, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that certain amount of latitude within reasonable limits is per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... control or knowledge of the Government Department at the State level. Hence such situation, if results in delay in initiating the process of filing appeal, if not inordinate, should not be permitted to act detrimental to the interest of the State at large. 23. What appears from the record is decision making body which was responsible to take decision regarding carrying the litigation in appeal was not made aware of the impugned decision, viz. the award of the Reference Court, immediately. This Court is of the view that such non-communication can be attributable to local parameters for which the State as a whole cannot be held responsible so as to deprive the State of an opportunity of agitating a legal right to challenge the award before higher forum. Moreover, considering the fact that huge tracts of land were acquired and so far as litigation of acquisition proceeding was in four different groups and each group consists of several references. All these groups have been decided on different dates as mentioned in the tabular form hereinabove. Therefore, the first award in a group of same acquisition was on 05.11.2014. Therefore, it was reasonable for the State in this case to wai....