2017 (6) TMI 1219 - HC - Indian Laws

Condonation of delay of 744 days which had occurred in filing the First Appeals by the State of Gujarat - Revenue 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. Respondent argues that now it is well settled proposition of law that even for the State Government delay has to be explained in detail and in fact explanation on day to day basis is required to be pleaded and established. According to him no explanation is offered for the delay for the period between 16.01.2014 and 01.08.2015. Similarly no explanation is offered for the delay between 01.08.2015 and 01.11.2015. Held that - The major portion of the delay between the date of the impugned award and the date of knowledge of the award to the Department concerned with the acquisition process can be attributed only to any individual whose responsibility it was to embark upon the proceedings which are the natural consequences of the impugned award. The options available are either to accept the award and proceed to execute the same or to challenge the same. Nothing on record is pointed out about the steps taken by claimants also to get the award executed. When there is a large time gap in the initiation of the action but once action is initiated it is vigilantly followed and reasonably explained then the initial time gap in initiating the action requires to be construed liberally - In a given case the reason behind lack of prompt action at local level can be attributed to several local factors prevailing at relevant time. These factors may not be within the 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. This Court is of the view that condonation of delay and permitting the State to proceed with the litigation would not in any manner cause any hardship to the claimants as in any case the lands stood acquired for the public purpose - this Court is persuaded to construe the delay liberally and accept the explanation given for the delay in preferring the appeal. Application for COD allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.
2. Explanation and justification for the delay.
3. Legal precedents and principles for condonation of delay.
4. Impact on the claimants and public interest.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals:
The State of Gujarat filed Civil Applications for condonation of delay in preferring appeals against the award of the Reference Court. The delays ranged from 622 to 925 days. The applications were filed due to the delay in filing First Appeals against the judgment and award by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vyara.

2. Explanation and Justification for the Delay:
The delay was primarily attributed to procedural requirements and financial implications. The State detailed the movement of files between various departments, including the Narmada Water Resources, Water Supply, and Kalpasar Department, the Finance Department, and the Legal Department. The process involved obtaining legal opinions, budgetary sanctions, and the constitution of committees to decide on filing appeals. Significant dates and events were outlined, such as the receipt of legal opinions, committee resolutions, and final approvals for filing appeals.

The learned Assistant Government Pleader argued that the delay was due to the administrative process and financial considerations, which necessitated the formation of a committee to evaluate the case comprehensively. The committee eventually recommended filing the appeals.

3. Legal Precedents and Principles for Condonation of Delay:
The respondent-claimants opposed the condonation, arguing that the State failed to provide a detailed explanation for the delay, particularly for certain periods. They cited various judgments emphasizing the need for a day-to-day explanation of the delay, even for the State. Key judgments referenced included:

- New India Insurance Company vs. Smt. Keshar: Emphasized the need for detailed explanations for delays.
- State of Gujarat vs. Saiyed Mohd. Banquir: Highlighted the requirement for a day-to-day explanation.
- Office of the Chief Post Master General vs. Living Media Indian Ltd: Stressed that procedural delays should not be condoned without plausible explanations.
- Basawaraj vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer: Stated that negligence or lack of bona fide should not be condoned liberally.

The court also considered the principles laid down in Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad vs. Voltas Ltd, emphasizing that the sufficiency of the cause for delay must be established based on facts and that administrative delay alone is insufficient.

4. Impact on the Claimants and Public Interest:
The court acknowledged that the delay did not cause hardship to the claimants as the land was acquired for public purposes. The court emphasized that the decision-making process involved multiple departments and required careful consideration of financial implications. It was noted that the State acted diligently once the decision to appeal was made.

The court concluded that the delay should be construed liberally, considering the procedural complexities and the public interest involved. The explanation provided by the State was deemed sufficient, and the delay was condoned.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the Civil Applications for condonation of delay, accepting the State's explanation for the procedural and administrative delays. The delay in filing the First Appeals was condoned, and the State was permitted to proceed with the litigation. The ruling emphasized the importance of considering public interest and the procedural challenges faced by the State in such cases. The delay of 744 days, 683 days, 622 days, and 925 days in each batch of the First Appeals was condoned, and the rule was made absolute.