TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (11) TMI 814
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of an appeal from the decision of the Reference Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. THE ISSUE 2. The limited issue that we are tasked to decide is, whether the High Court was justified in condoning the delay in presentation of the appeal. In the process, we need to necessarily consider whether the first respondent had shown sufficient cause for which the appeal could not be presented within the prescribed period of limitation. RELEVANT FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE APPEAL 3. The appeal has its genesis in a proceeding for acquisition of land. It is noticed from the materials on record that the Reference Court in LAC No. 198/08, vide its order dated 31st October 2008, enhanced compensation payable to the landowners. Such order was sought to be challenged by the first respondent in an appeal before the High Court on 2 nd June 2010, numbered as LA. App. No. 655/2010. Since the appeal was time barred (delayed by 479 days), the first respondent applied for condonation of delay. 4. After considering the pleadings as well as the other materials on record, the High Court was satisfied that the first respondent, as the appellant, had shown sufficient caus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Department on 25th March 2010. The cheque towards court fees was received sometime in April 2010, after which the same was deposited with the Treasury on 7 th May 2010. The Treasury having deposited the court fees on 11 th May 2010, finally the appeal came to be presented on 2nd June 2010. APPELLANT'S CONTENTIONS 7. Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, learned senior counsel, contended that the High Court plainly erred in condoning the delay without sufficient cause being shown therefor. He pointed out that the reasons cited were not reasonable by any measure, and that the same were habitual unacceptable explanations meted out in such land acquisition matters to seek condonation of delay. Adverting to the order granting the prayer for condonation of delay, it was next submitted that the High Court, and this Court, on numerous occasions had refused to condone delays of lesser periods. An attempt was made to impress upon us that it was not even the case of the first respondent that the explanation proffered by it in the present matter was more cogent than the ones in the other cases before several fora which were not accepted. He urged that the High Court caused a failure of justice in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unfortunate that such delays often act as impediments in the way of the State's collective cause for the community, where the ultimate prey happens to be public interest. 13. Mr. Sen put forth the contention that the High Court, in due exercise of its discretion, had chosen the pragmatic path while noting that the negligence in pursuing the appeal did not amount to callousness; it was in this light that the High Court had condoned the delay after imposing heavy costs on the first respondent. 14. In the light of the foregoing submissions, Mr. Sen prayed that the High Court ought to be given the opportunity to decide LA. App. No. 655/2010 on its own merits where the appellant would have the opportunity to persuade the High Court to dismiss the appeal, if at all. He, thus, prayed that the present appeal be dismissed. THE PRECEDENTS 15. Learned senior counsel for both the parties invited our attention to various decisions of this Court, which we propose to consider hereafter. 16. In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107 the relevant high court did not condone the delay of 4 (four) days in presentation of an appeal by the Coll....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... It was also observed therein that it would be improper to put the State on the same footing as an individual since it was an impersonal machinery operating through its officers. 18. In Balwant Singh (supra), this Court refused to condone the delay of 778 days in bringing on record the legal heirs of the petitioner therein through an application filed under Order XXII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It was observed that though sufficient cause should be construed in a liberal manner, the same could not be equated with doing injustice to the other party. For sufficient cause to receive liberal treatment, the same must fall within reasonable time and through proper conduct of the concerned party. The Court emphasised that for such an application for condonation to be seen in a positive light, the same should be bona fide, based on true and plausible explanations, and should reflect the normal conduct of a common prudent person. Further, the explained delay should be clearly understood in contradistinction to inordinate unexplained delay to warrant a condonation. 19. Lanka Venkateswarlu (Dead) v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 363 happened to be a case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h a delay of 312 days by the State in preferring its first appeal before the high court. This Court, on grounds of public interest, the impersonal nature of governments, and the ramifications of individual errors on State interest, condoned the delay in filing the first appeal on payment of costs of Rs. 50,000/-. 23. In Delhi University (supra), another Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of this Court declined to condone the delay of 916 days by the appellant in challenging an order of a Single Judge of the high court. This Court, whilst distinguishing Mst. Katiji (supra) on facts, observed that the consideration to condone could only be made on presentation of a reasonable explanation, and the same could not be done simply because the appellant therein was a public body. It then went on to note the conduct of the appellant in demonstrating delay and laches not only in filing the appeal, but also the original writ petition before the high court at the first instance. While refusing to condone the appellant's delay, it was specifically noted that condonation of delay at that stage would be prejudicial to public interest as one of the respondents therein (Delhi Metro Rail Corporation) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....missible. It is rightly said that those who bear responsibility of Government must have 'a little play at the joints'. Due recognition of these limitations on governmental functioning - of course, within reasonable limits - is necessary if the judicial approach is not to be rendered unrealistic. It would, perhaps, be unfair and unrealistic to put government and private parties on the same footing in all respects in such matters. Implicit in the very nature of governmental functioning is procedural delay incidental to the decision-making process." [...] 26. Mst. Katiji (supra) was also noticed by a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of this Court in State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani (1996) 3 SCC 132 where we find the following discussion: "11. *** When the State is an applicant, praying for condonation of delay, it is common knowledge that on account of impersonal machinery and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note-making, file-pushing, and passing-on-the-buck ethos, delay on the part of the State is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve, but the State represents collective cause of the community. It is axiomatic that decisions are....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pted correct approach and had condoned the delay without insisting upon explaining every day's delay in filing the review application in the light of the law laid down by this Court. The High Court was not right in setting aside the order. Delay was rightly condoned." ANALYSIS 28. We have heard Mr. Sharma and Mr. Sen, appearing on behalf of the appellants and the respondents respectively, and perused the order under challenge. 29. Considering the aforementioned decisions, there cannot be any quarrel that this Court has stepped in to ensure that substantive rights of private parties and the State are not defeated at the threshold simply due to technical considerations of delay. However, these decisions notwithstanding, we reiterate that condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial. Sometimes, due to want of sufficient cause being shown or an acceptable explanation being proffered, delay of the shortest range may not be condoned whereas, in certain other cases, delay of lon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....early wrong". 31. The order under challenge in this appeal is dated 21st December 2011. It was rendered at a point of time when the decisions in Mst. Katiji (supra), Ramegowda (supra), Chandra Mani (supra), K.V. Ayisumma (supra) and Lipok AO (supra) were holding the field. It is not that the said decisions do not hold the field now, having been overruled by any subsequent decision. Although there have been some decisions in the recent past [State of M.P. v. Bherulal (2020) 10 SCC 654 is one such decision apart from University of Delhi (supra)] which have not accepted governmental lethargy, tardiness and indolence in presenting appeals within time as sufficient cause for condonation of delay, yet, the exercise of discretion by the High Court has to be tested on the anvil of the liberal and justice oriented approach expounded in the aforesaid decisions which have been referred to above. We find that the High Court in the present case assigned the following reasons in support of its order: a. The law of limitation was founded on public policy, and that some lapse on the part of a litigant, by itself, would not be sufficient to deny condonation of delay as the same could ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....condone the delay. The decision really turns on the facts before this Court because of the prejudice factor involved. 36. We can also profitably refer to Koting Lamkang (supra), cited by Mr. Sen, where the same Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of this Court which decided University of Delhi (supra) was of the view that the impersonal nature of the State's functioning should be given due regard, while ensuring that individual defaults are not nit-picked at the cost of collective interest. The relevant paragraphs read as follows: "7. But while concluding as above, it was necessary for the Court to also be conscious of the bureaucratic delay and the slow pace in reaching a government decision and the routine way of deciding whether the State should prefer an appeal against a judgment adverse to it. Even while observing that the law of limitation would harshly affect the party, the Court felt that the delay in the appeal filed by the State, should not be condoned. 8. Regard should be had in similar such circumstances to the impersonal nature of the Government's functioning where individual officers may fail to act responsibly. This in turn, would result in injusti....