TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 1554
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eferring this appeal against the impugned award dated 11 September 1995 made in Land Acquisition Reference No. 826 of 1990. 3] Although, the appeal accompanied by the civil application seeking condonation of delay was instituted on or about 17 November 1997, for several reasons, which shall be borne from the Roznama, the civil application seeking condonation of delay could not be taken up for consideration. The primary reasons for this delay is the lack of diligence in taking steps to serve the respondents. 4] Mr. Dabke, the learned AGP for the State, submits that there is delay in applying for the certified copy of the impugned award on account of heavy work load in the office of the District Government Pleader, which was handling th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this Hon'ble Court. After sanction, the papers were received in the office of the Government pleader, the work of drafting entrusted to one of the Law Officers who in turn after due scrutiny drafted the memo of appeal. After getting adequate number of copies typed of the Judgment passed by the Reference Court and adequate copies of the Memo of First Appeal, the office of the Government Pleader filed the said First Appeal in this Hon'ble Court." 6] The averments in the application seeking condonation, are quite casual and unverifiable. On basis of such routine averments, the State, cannot, in every case, plead that delay should be condoned, because it is an impersonal agency, which is required to act through its officers. The statements ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ross purposes with it. In a given case, if any, such facts are pleaded and proved they cannot be excluded from consideration. In a case with which we are concerned, no such facts have been either pleaded or proved. 8] In Registrar of Companies vs. Rajshree Sugar & Chemicals Ltd. and ors. (2000) 6 SCC 133 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that though some latitude has to be shown to the Government in deciding the question of delay, that does not give a licence to the officers of the Government to shirk their responsibility to act with reasonable expedition. 9] In Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors. (2013) 12 SCC 649 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has inter alia laid down the following guid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....logy 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. 13. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and 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 red­tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an excepti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the court that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose. (See Manindra Land and Building Corpn. Ltd. v. Bhutnath Banerjee, Mata Din v. A. Narayanan, Parimal v. Veena and Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corpn. of Brihan Mumbai.) ........ ......... 15. The law on the issue can be sum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vantage has accrued to the non­applicants claimants and the same cannot be withdrawn in a mechanical manner and that too without any sufficient cause being shown by the applicants. Despite, awards/judgments of the Courts, which have attained finality, the claimants are not permitted to receive compensation in respect of their lands, which came to be compulsorily acquired, is itself, sufficient prejudice to them. Therefore, before any delay can be condoned and the claimants subjected to further prolonged litigation, the onus to show sufficient cause lies upon the applicant­ State. 13] In this case, the Division Bench of this Court commented upon routine excuses stated in applications seeking condonation of delay in instituting the....