2017 (2) TMI 1554 - HC - Indian Laws

Condonation of delay of 589 days in preferring this appeal against the impugned award - primary reasons for this delay is the lack of diligence in taking steps to serve the respondents - Sufficient cause for delay or not - HELD THAT - In the present case, the impugned award was made on 11 September 1995. As noted earlier, there is delay of about 589 days in instituting the appeal. The reasons stated are routine/official hassle and the time required to seek approval at different levels. This is not sufficient cause to condone the delay. Even the conduct of the State in not taking steps to effect service upon the landlosers or their legal representatives, though not strictly speaking relevant to consider the application for condonation of delay, cannot be easily pardoned. The State invariably, obtains ad interim reliefs, thereafter does not take steps to serve the respondents. In this case, the appeal was instituted in the year 1997, but on account of negligence in taking steps to effect service upon the respondents, even the application seeking condonation of delay could not be disposed of till date. In the meanwhile, the landlosers were deprived of compensation awarded in their favour by the Reference Court. There is no case made out for condonation of delay of 589 days in instituting the appeal - application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal against impugned award in Land Acquisition Reference No. 826 of 1990.

Analysis:
The High Court of Bombay heard the application for condonation of delay of 589 days in filing an appeal against an award dated 11 September 1995 in a land acquisition matter. The State government, through its Assistant Government Pleader, sought condonation citing heavy workload, bureaucratic procedures, and lack of mala fide intent as reasons for the delay. However, the court found the reasons provided to be insufficient, especially when dealing with cases of landlosers who have been deprived of compensation for years. The court referenced the importance of public interest and the need to avoid pursuing stale claims, emphasizing that the law of limitation applies equally to citizens and governmental authorities.

The court referred to various Supreme Court judgments, including Pundlik Jalam Patil and Registrar of Companies, stressing the need for government bodies to act diligently and not use delay condonation as a routine benefit. The court highlighted that lack of proper explanation for the delay, beyond mentioning dates, is unacceptable. The judgment also quoted guidelines from Esha Bhattacharjee's case regarding the careful drafting of applications for condonation of delay, emphasizing that delay should not be taken lightly and should be justified with reasonable and acceptable explanations.

Additionally, the court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Postmaster General's case, where it was emphasized that modern technologies should eliminate excuses based on bureaucratic processes. The court also cited Basawaraj's case, outlining the concept of "sufficient cause" for delay, which requires a satisfactory explanation to justify condonation. The court noted that the burden lies on the applicant to show sufficient cause for the delay, especially in cases where landlosers are affected by prolonged litigation due to negligence.

In this specific case, the court found the reasons provided by the State for the delay to be routine and insufficient. Despite the delay of 589 days in filing the appeal, the court dismissed the application for condonation of delay, stating that there was no case made out for condoning the delay. Consequently, the civil application seeking condonation was dismissed, and the appeal was also dismissed. The court highlighted the negligence in serving the respondents, leading to further deprivation of compensation for the landlosers, which contributed to the decision to deny the condonation of delay.