Director Sheep Husbandry vs Sudesh Kumari And Others

Applicant seeks condonation of delay of 772 days in filing of appeal against the award dated 15.11.2010 passed by learned District Judge,

Udhampur in file No. 12/L.A Act.

Briefly stated facts which are relevant for consideration are that a reference against the award of compensation awarded by the Collector land

Acquisition, Udhampur was made in 1997 and the learned District Judge vide its award dated 09.04.2004 enhanced the compensation amount.

Director, Sheep Husbandry Department-State filed an appeal CIA No. 10/2004 which was dismissed on 28.05.2009. In terms of the order of the

Court, applicant-State had deposited the entire amount in the High Court, which was disbursed to the claimants.

Almost eight years, a reference was again made by the Collector Land Acquisition, Udhampur on 05.04.2005. Respondents disputed the same on

the ground that that the compensation has already been enhanced for the land by the District Collector Land Acquisition on 09.04.2004. This

reference was decided by the District Judge by enhancing the compensation on 15.11.2010. Respondent-Parshotam Singh applied for execution of the

award dated 15.11.2010 in which notices were issued.

The State before the Executing Court, took a stand that the entire enhanced amount for the whole acquired land measuring 171 kanals and 13

marlas stood deposited before the Court and, as the same has already been disbursed to the parties, co-sharers, as such, these proceeding are not

maintainable. However, the Executing Court proceeded to attach the account of applicant.

Respondents have vehemently opposed the application for condonation of delay and stated that since respondent was not a party to the reference,

therefore, he could not be made a party in CIA No. 10/2004. There is no explanation for inordinate time taken to file this appeal and there is no

sufficient cause shown to condone the delay.

Thus, the only question which is to be considered at this stage is whether there is sufficient cause shown to condone the delay. This Court in

‘Union of India and another v. M/S Godrej Agrovet Limited, 2015 1 JKJ 58 1while considering the condonation of delay of 928 days had held that

the expression sufficient cause has bearing section 5 of the Limitation Act must receive liberal consideration so as to advance substantial justice as

has been held by the Apex Court in G. Ramegowda v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (1988) 2 SCC 142.

“The Law of limitation is, no doubt, the same for a private citizen as for Governmental Authorities. Government, like any other litigant, must take

responsibility for the acts or omissions of its officers. But a somewhat different complexion is imparted to the matter where Government makes out a

case where public interest was shown to have suffered owing to acts of fraud or bad faith on the part of its officers of agent and where the officers

were clearly at cross-purposes with it.â€​

In Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh and others (2010) 8 SCC 685, it has held that:

“liberal construction of the expression “sufficient cause†is intended to advance substantial justice which itself pre-supposes no negligence or

inaction on the part of the applicant to whom want of bona fide is imputable. The sufficient cause should be such as it would persuade the Court, in

exercise of its judicial discretion, to treat the delay as an excusable one. The department having engaged the counsel of repute is justified in their

contention that the mistake committed by the counsel cannot prejudice the party.â€​

The law of limitation no doubt applies equally to all but Hon’ble the Supreme Court in “The Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition, Kerala v. K.

V. Ayisumma 1996 10 SCC 634 has held that:

“It is now settled law that when the delay was occasioned at the behest of the Government, it would be very difficult to explain the day to day

delay. The transaction of the business of the Government being done leisurely by officers who had no or evince no personal interest at different levels.

No one takes personal responsibility in processing the matters expeditiously. As a fact at several stages, they take their own time to reach a decision.

Even in spite of pointing at the delay, they do not take expeditious action for ultimate decision in filing the appeal. This case is one of such instances. It

is true that Section 5 of the Limitation Act envisages explanation of the delay to the satisfaction of the Court and in matters of Limitation Act made no

distinction between the State and the citizen. Nonetheless adoption of strict standard of proof leads to grave miscarriage of public justice, it would

result in public mischief by skilful management of delay in the process of filing the appeal. The approach of the Court would be pragmatic but not

pendandic. Under those circumstances, the Subordinate Judge has rightly adopted correct approach and had condoned the delay without insisting upon

explaining every days 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.â€​

The above appeal to the facts of the case and in view of the above discussion and the proposing law as laid down in Civil Appeal No. 5131 of 2019

titled Hemlata Verma v. M/s ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court has held:

“We may consider it apposite to observe that the Commission while declining to condone the delay placed reliance on the decision of this Court in

Ramlal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 36.1 However, the later decision of this Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs.

Mst. Katiji & Ors., (1987) 2 SCC 107 has held that in matter of condonation of delay, the Court should take liberal view. In our view, the Commission

should have, therefore, taken not of subsequent decisions of this Court on the issue of condonation of delay.â€​

The application deserves to be allowed.

In view of the aforesaid decisions of Hon’ble the Supreme Court, it is held that delay in filing the appeal is condoned, however, subject to

payment of costs of Rs. 20,000/- by the applicant to the respondents with a period of three weeks.

List CIA No. 19/2013 on 17.03.2020.