The Executive Engineer, Medium Project Division, Osmanabad v. Shahaji Dhondiba Khose And Others
( 1 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD 941 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3305 OF 2016 IN FAST/2747/2016 .
The Executive Engineer, Medium Project Division, Osmanabad, Dist.Osmanabad ..Applicant
VERSUS
1.
Shahaji Dhondiba Khose Age: Major, Occu.: Agri, R/o.Lanjeshwar, Tq.Bhoom, Dist.Osmanabad.
2.
Smt.Indirabai Dhondiba Khose Deceased, through L.R. Resp.No.1 3.
The State of Maharashtra, Through the Collector, Osmanabad.
..Respondents ...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr.Rodge Pratap G.
Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr.R.K.Shinganapure, Mr.A.N.Nagargoje AGP for Respondent/State : Mr.B.V.Virde ...
CORAM : M.S.SONAK, J.
DATE :
2.2.2018 ORAL JUDGMENT:- 1) In this civil application, delay of 1672 days is
( 2 ) applied to be condoned. There is no proper explanation for this inordinate delay. No particulars have been set out. The applicant is a acquiring body or a Government body and that some time is always required for movement of files and for taking of decisions, is no ground for condoning the delay.
2) In Pundlik Jalam Patil (Dead) By Lrs. vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon, Medium Project and anr ., reported in [ (2008) 17 SCC 448], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that pursing stale claims and multiplicity of proceedings in no manner subserves public interest. These public interest parameters ought to be kept in mind by the courts while exercising the discretion dealing with the application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act. Dragging 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
( 3 ) there being any proper explanation of such delay on the ground of involvement of public revenue. This serves no public interest.
Though, the State or its instrumentalities seeking condonation of delay may be entitled to certain amount of latitude but the law of limitation is same for citizens and for governmental authorities. 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 and proved they cannot be excluded from consideration. In cases with which we are concerned, no such facts have been either pleaded or proved.
3) In Registrar of Companies vs. Rajshree Sugar & Chemicals Ltd. and ors ., reported in [ 2(2000) 6 SCC 133], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that though some latitude
( 4 ) has to be shown to the Government in deciding the question of delay, that does not give a licence to the officers of the Government to shirk their responsibility to act with reasonable expedition.
4) In Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur afar Academy & ors ., reported in [ 3(2013) 12 SCC 649], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that an application for condonation of delay should be drafted with careful concern and not in a haphazard manner harbouring the notion that the courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that an application for condonation of delay should not be dealt with in a routine manner on the basis of individual philosophy which is basically subjective. The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a nonserious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can
( 5 ) be exhibited in a nonchalant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters.
5) In Postmaster General and Ors. vs. Living Media India Limited and anr.
, reported in [ 4(2012) 3 SCC 563], the Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to condone the delay of 427 days in filing the special leave petition by observing that department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions where a very liberal approach was adopted when it came to condone delay on the part of Government agencies. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that 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. It is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable
( 6 ) 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 department. 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, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. 6) In Basawaraj and anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, reported in [ (2013) 14 SCC 81] the Hon'ble
( 7 ) Supreme Court went on to observe that the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory
( 8 ) provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature.
7) The Division Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra and ors. vs. Vithu Kalya Govari and ors., reported in [ 2008(6) Mh.L.J.239] has observed that the State is not expected to be negligent or to take no action for years and let the matters become time barred on account of its negligence and inaction. The usual reason of "official hassle" or "approval at different levels" is hardly sufficient to justify condonation of delay of about two years. In law, advantage has accrued to the non-applicants claimants and the same cannot be withdrawn in a mechanical manner and that too without any sufficient cause being shown by the applicants. Despite, awards/judgments of the Courts, which have attained finality, the claimants are not permitted to receive compensation in respect of their lands, which came to be compulsorily acquired, is itself, sufficient prejudice to
( 9 ) them. Therefore, before any delay can be condoned and the claimants subjected to further prolonged litigation, the onus to show sufficient cause lies upon the applicant-State.
8) Applying the aforesaid principles, there is no case made out for condonation of delay. Civil application is dismissed.
9) Apart from this, in this case, the Land Acquisition Officer has granted compensation of Rs.1,57,585/-, which has been enhanced by the Reference Court to Rs.1,77,266/-. This means that the quantum of the enhanced compensation is less than Rs.20,000/-. Besides, the enhancement granted is well within the limits prescribed in the Government Resolution dated 3.11.2016 as amended from time by which the State Government has taken a policy decision not to pursue appeals where the enhanced compensation is less than four times of Ready
( 10 ) Reckoner Rates as prevalent on the date of Section 4 Notification. The policy decision applied for acquiring bodies as well.
10) Upon cumulative consideration of the circumstances, the civil application is dismissed. As a result, appeal itself stands dismissed.
11) Pending civil applications and appeals do not survive and the same are also dismissed.
[M.S.SONAK, J.] SPT/941-CA 3305 of 2016