9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 1219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tween 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 initia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompensation at the rate of ₹ 28/- per square meter. 4. Not being satisfied with the award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the interested persons preferred land reference cases with the claim of additional compensation at the rate of ₹ 1000/- per square meter. 5. The reference court allowed the references by awarding additional compensation at the rate of ₹ 417/- per square meter with statutory interest on the aggregate amount and benefits as provided under the Statute. 6. The State of Gujarat, through the concerned Department has resolved to challenge the order of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vyara in awarding compensation at the rate mentioned in the preceding paras. However, when such appeals were preferred before this Court there was delay of 744 days. In para 3 of the Civil Application, the State of Gujarat has narrated as to how files in connection with preferring all the appeals have proceeded from the concerned Department to the Secretariat. It also narrates bare dates as to how files proceeded, which can be narrated as under: Date event 16/01/14 Impugned judgment rendered by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vyara.. 0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch committee. Said committee has undertaken the exercise of examining the case in totality including resolution pertaining to appeals in case of petty amount involved and that after undertaking such exercise gave opinion that appeals may be preferred in such cases. 8. Mr.Nirupam D. Nanavaty, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-claimants has opposed the Civil Applications for condonation of delay. He submits 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. He submits that where there is unexplained delay, such delay should not be condoned. 9. In support of his contentions the learned senior advocate has referred to and relied upon various judgments of this High Court, other High Courts and the Hon'ble Apex Court. (i) New India Insurance Company and others Vs. Smt. Keshar and others, reported in A.I.R. 1996 R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Government of Gujarat, Legal Department dated 09.02.2015, pursuant to the direction issued by the High Court of Gujarat, which provides for time bound steps to be taken by the officers and authorities for avoiding the delay in court proceedings on the part of the State Government and therefore, even as per the circular the officers and authorities were bound to act. For not having acted so, the claimants cannot be made to suffer. 11. Mr.Nirupam D. Nanavaty, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- claimants has also relied upon the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondent (one of the claimants) and urged this Court not to entertain the application for codonantion of delay. 12. As against this, the learned Assistant Government Pleader has filed additional affidavit sworn by the Deputy Executive Engineer to explain the delay in detail. He has stated on oath that the judgment impugned is rendered by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vyara. However, the said fact came to the knowledge of the authorities of Narmada Water Resources, Water Supply and Kalpasar Department (hereinafter referred to as 'the concerned Department') in the mon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a committee and that file was required to be submitted after scrutiny by the appropriate committee. In the meanwhile, the Superintending Engineer of the local area has also forwarded his opinion which was received by the concerned Department on 30.01.2016 and by the Department's Resolution dated 14.03.2016 a committee was constituted. The file was placed before the Committee on 04.04.2016. On 21.04.2016 the Committee agreed to accept the decision of the District Court as it was a case of petty amount. The Committee communicated to the concerned Department to place the file again along with relevant Resolution of the State Government pertaining to appeals involving cases of petty amount. The file was re-submitted to the Committee on 16.05.2016 and the committee under the Chairmanship of the Chief Engineer (SG) & Additional Secretary sanctioned proposal for the purpose of preferring appeals on 24.05.2016. Based on such recommendation of the Committee the concerned Department took decision on 02.07.2016, that appeals have to be filed against the decision of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vyara in this group of land reference cases. Accordingly, on 25.07.2016 Legal Depa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, Arbitration Act, Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, or the Workmen's Compensation Act or Code of Criminal Procedure referring to revisional jurisdiction. 18. Discussion on the issue of condonation of delay in the cited judgments is as under: (A) Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad Vs. Voltas Ltd, reported in 1994 (2) GLR 1325. The Full Bench of this Court was considering the reference made to it on account of differences in two Division Bench judgments pertaining to condonation of delay. The principle laid down was that the courts are required to take liberal view considering the facts constituting sufficiency of cause on the basis of which condonation of delay was sought. The Bench held that the condonation of delay was necessarily within the discretionary jurisdiction of the court and the court concerned with the application for condonation of delay would necessarily exercise discretion judiciously in light of the well established principles and on appreciation of relevant facts. The Bench also proceeded to hold, while answering the question by a majority view, as under: "31. The majority view (Per : M. B: Shah & Y. B. Bhatt, JJ.) is as under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Court deciding the application for condonation would necessarily exercise its discretion judicially in 'the light of the well established principles, as regards the appreciation of the relevant facts." (B) Office of the Chief Post Master General & others Vs. Living Media Indian Ltd & another, reported in 2012 (1) GLH 670 (SC). The Hon'ble Apex Court was considering whether the Office of the Chief Post Master General has shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the SLP before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also considered other two issues, mainly whether the Department has made out a case for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to re- open the concurrent findings and the facts rendered by the High Court and while considering the previous judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and referring to the stage-wise movement of the file for taking decision to challenge the order, held that in absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, the delay is not to be condoned mechanically, merely because Government or a wing of the Government was a party before the Hon'ble Apex Court. It also held that wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n was preferred by the State after lapse of 13 months against the second dismissal order along with application for condonation of delay. When the learned District Judge allowed the application for condonation, the High Court dismissed the revision application filed by the decree-holder holding specifically that the delay should be condoned by adopting liberal attitude towards the State. In these facts, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in absence of sufficient cause, liberal approach in case of State is not warranted, especially whether the State's action is marred by serious lapses and negligence in absence of sufficient cause. (F) Maniben Devraj Shah Vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, reported in (2012) 5 SCC 157. The Hon'ble Apex Court was considering the case whether in filing the appeal, delay of more than 7 years had occurred which was attributed to administrative delay. The Court found that the explanation for delay was not specific but also found that the explanation, prima facie, is concocted and where the ground of transfer of advocate which allegedly caused an impediment for the Corporation to prosecute the proceedings diligently, such explanation wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gging the land losers to courts of law years after the termination of legal proceedings would not serve any public interest. Settled rights cannot be lightly interfered with by condoning inordinate delay without there being any proper explanation of such delay on the ground of involvement of public revenue. It serves no public interest. 31. It is true when the State and its instrumentalities are the applicants seeking condonation of delay they may be entitled to certain amount of latitude but the law of limitation is same for citizen and for Governmental authorities. Limitation Act does not provide for a different period to the government in filing appeals or applications as such. It would be a different matter where the Government makes out a case where public interest was shown to have suffered owing to acts of fraud or collusion on the part of its officers or agents and where the officers were clearly at cross purposes with it. In a given case if any such facts are pleaded or proved they cannot be excluded from consideration and those factors may go into the judicial verdict. In the present case, no such facts are pleaded and proved though a feeble attempt by the learned counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, reported in (1996) 3 SCC 132, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that certain amount of latitude within reasonable limits is permissible having regard to impersonal bureaucratic setup involving red-tapism. 19. With the aforementioned, the Court may proceed to consider the facts which had emerged in this case. 20. Having taken into consideration the pleadings, the case papers and the arguments forwarded by the respective parties, this Court finds that the State Government is able to demonstrate that the State of Gujarat was from the beginning in the process of taking decision to prefer appeals or not and for that purpose the file has seen movement between Narmada Water Resources, Water Supply and Kalpasar Department, which is concerned Department and the local office from where proceedings of acquisition were initiated, then decision of the concerned Department to accept the impugned award and move the Finance Department for the purpose of budgetary allocation to satisfy the impugned award. However, it was the Finance Department which returned the file to the concerned Department for re-consideration after constituting sub-committee for the purpose and after the sub-commit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, the first award in a group of same acquisition was on 05.11.2014. Therefore, it was reasonable for the State in this case to wait for final outcome in each of the references so that a uniform stand can be taken in such group of litigations. 24. 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. 25. Therefore, in the aforesaid set of circumstances, this Court is persuaded to construe the delay liberally and accept the explanation given for the delay in preferring the appeal. These Civil Applications are therefore, required to be allowed. 26. Insofar as initial period when it is mentioned in the affidavit that existence of the impugned award was brought to the notice of the concerned Department, this Court would believe that such fact is stated on affidavit by a responsible officer of the Department and when after date of knowledge the department has vigilantly moved proposals along with necessary documents, this Court would not doubt the statement made on affidavit to accept that the date of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
