State of U.P. and Others vs Smt. Mahadevi

Hon''ble Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.—These 9 appeals are directed against common judgment, award and decree dated 27.9.1993 passed by 5th A.D.J. Bulandshar in 9 L.A. References being L.A. Reference No. 66 to 84 all of 1993. All these appeals have been filed with exactly 500/- days delay. In each appeal time to file supplementary affidavit in respect of delay condonation application was granted and supplementary affidavits were filed on 15.11.1995. Through the impugned judgment compensation has been enhanced from about Rs. 20,000/- per bigha to about Rs. 70,000/- per bigha. In the original affidavit filed along with delay condonation application it was stated that appellants i.e. State of U.P. through Collector Bulandshar, S.L.A.O. Bulandshar and Executive Engineer Madhya Ganga Nahar Khand -19 Aligarh got the copy of the judgment on 6.11.1993 thereafter D.G.C. was required to give his opinion. The D.G.C. gave the opinion for filing appeal on 9.11.1993. The matter was referred to the acquiring body which sent its recommendation on 21.12.1993. Thereafter on 24.12.1993 matter was referred to the State for obtaining sanction to file appeal. The Government raised some queries through letter dated 9.2.1994 which was replied on 18.3.1994 (para 12 of the affidavit). Thereafter sanction was granted on 6.6.1994 and 27.6.1994. Thereafter it is mentioned in para 15 that huge Court fees amounting to Rs. 30,000/- was required which was to be paid by the appellant No. 3. Appellant nos. 1 and 2 wrote eleven letters from 9.2.1994 to 17.5.1995 in that regard (para 15 of the affidavit). Thereafter, in para 16 it is mentioned that inspite of so many letters money was not made available hence it was withdrawn from P.L.A. account on 26.5.1995.

In the supplementary affidavit filed on 15.11.1995 exactly same thing has been stated. In para 7 of the supplementary affidavit the 11 dates on which reminders were sent by appellant No. 1 and 2 to appellant No. 3 as mentioned in para 15 of the original affidavit have been again mentioned. Appellant No. 3 even after 11 reminders from February 1994 till May 1995 (15 months) did not remit the necessary expenses. Ultimately expenses were withdrawn from P.L.A. Account. It shows utter negligence of the appellants.

In office of the Chief Post Master General Vs. Living Media J.T. 2012 (2) S.C. 483 Supreme Court refused to condone the inordinate delay (of 427 days) in filing SLP paras 12 and 13 of the said judgment are quoted below:

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 SLP 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 or a wing of the Government is a party before us. 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.

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 red-tape 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 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 reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.

Moreover, the enhanced amount as awarded by the impugned judgment must have been realised by the claimants respondents long before. No one has appeared on their behalf even though notices on delay condonation applications were issued. Supreme Court in Stanes Higher Secondary School Vs. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, has held that if the amount as awarded by the reference court has been withdrawn by the landowner then even if High Court reduces the said amount, it would be quite unjust to direct return of the said amount (para 12).

In The State of Punjab Vs. Harchal Singh (Dead) through LRs., the Court has taken into consideration the "Laws Delay" which may not be attributable to anyone in the land acquisition matters. In the instant case also the matter has become almost 20 years old since the date on which amount was enhanced by the reference court. Accordingly, delay condonation application in each appeal is rejected.