Dismissed

State of U.P. v. Addl.Commissioner Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC4 Apr 2024WRIC/3000170/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a rejection of an appeal filed with significant delay. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that negligence by State machinery cannot justify condoning delay, even when preferential time limits apply.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as the State failed to explain the considerable delay in filing the appeal.

State of U.P. Vs Addl.Commissioner Lucknow and Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:27830

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3000170 of 1998

¶4

Petitioner :- State of U.P. Respondent :- Addl.Commissioner Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned State Counsel for petitioner as well for opposite parties 1 and 2. In view of order being passed, notice to opposite parties 3 and 4 stands dispensed with.

¶7

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 12th May, 1997 whereby appeal preferred by State under Section 13 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960 has been rejected on grounds of limitation.

¶8

It has been submitted that initially orders had been passed under section 10(2) of the aforesaid Act against predecessorsin-interest of opposite parties 3 and 4 whereafter order dated 22nd April, 1991 was passed. It is submitted that appeal was preferred along with an application seeking condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit and in paragraph 4 thereof, it was specifically stated that the Naib Tehsildar concerned was required to have taken appropriate steps for challenging order dated 22nd April, 1991 but lapses occurred and when it came to the knowledge of the authority on 16th November, 1991 that the order dated 22nd April, 1991 had not been appealed against, immediate steps were taken for seeking legal advice and approval for filing appeal, which was filed immediately thereafter and therefore there was no laches.

¶9

It has been submitted that ignoring the grounds taken in affidavit filed in support of application for condonation of

¶10

delay, the impugned order has been passed rejecting appeal primarily on the ground of limitation. It is submitted that the authority has lost sight of the fact that appeal was being filed by the State in public interest, which was a factor required to be taken into account while passing the impugned order. It is also submitted that authority has failed to consider the fact that state machinery is impersonal and it generally takes time for grant of requisite approvals for filing appeals etc. and therefore a liberal construction should have been taken for the words 'sufficient cause'.

¶11

Learned counsel has adverted to judgments rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana versus Chandra Mani and others, (1996) 3 Supreme Court Cases 132 and The State of West Bengal versus The Administrator, Howrah Municipality and others AIR 1972 Supreme Court 749.

¶12

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner and perusal of material on record, it appears that application for condonation of delay in filing appeal under Section 13 of the Act of 1960 has been rejected on the ground of limitation. The order clearly states the reasons thereof to the effect that in terms of section 13(1) of the Act, any person aggrieved from the order passed by the prescribed authority has been provided a time frame of 30 days for filing such an appeal whereas under Section 32(2) of the Act, 90 days time had been provided to State for filing such an appeal and therefore it has been held that already a preferential status has been provided to the state authorities for filing appeal, which even otherwise was not availed of. The order also states that no cogent explanation has been provided for filing appeal with such considerable delay.

¶13

Upon examination of the facts and circumstances, it is quite

¶14

evident that in the affidavit filed in support of application for condonation of delay in filing appeal under Section 13 of the Act, the opposite parties have admitted that they were aware of the order dated 23rd April, 1991 but steps for filing appeal were taken only on 16th November, 1991. There is no cogent explanation for not taking appropriate steps in the meantime and entire burden has been cast on Naib Tehsidlar concerned for not taking appropriate steps. It is a relevant factor that Naib Tehsildar is also a part and parcel of the state machinery and not some person outside it and therefore any lapses on his part would be deemed to be lapses on the part of state machinery itself.

¶15

A perusal of Sections 13 and 32 of the Act of 1960 also evidences the fact that already a preferential condition has been indicated in favour of the the state whereunder a private litigant has been granted only 30 days time to file an appeal against order by the prescribed authority whereas 90 days limitation has been provided to the state government for filing appeal thereagainst. In the considered opinion of this Court, the appellate authority was quite correct in observing that preferential treatment has already been accorded to the state authorities in filing appeal under Section 13 of the Act.

¶16

Even a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of application for condonation of delay, there is no explanation for the delay transpiring between April 1991 till November, 1991.

¶17

In the case of State of West Bengal (supra) as well as in the case of Chandra Mani (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken a liberal construction of the word 'sufficient cause' and has also held that a liberal construction should be taken for the words so as to advance substantial justice particularly when it pertains to appeals filed by the State since admittedly

¶18

considerable delay of procedural bread teeth occurs in the process of decision taking.

¶19

However the judgment also indicates the fact that the delay so occurring requires a pragmatic approach in justice oriented process and no separate standard to determine cause led by state viz-a-viz private litigant could be led to prove strict standards of sufficient cause. It also states that the delay so caused should not be as a consequence of negligence.

¶20

Subsequent to aforesaid judgments, Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with matter in the cases of State of Madhya Pradesh and others versus Bherulal, (2020) 10 SCC 654 and Postmaster General and others versus Living Media India Ltd., (2012) 3 SCC 563 and has held that where delay is occurred even by state authorities, although certain leeway is required to be granted but the same should not be as a result of negligence on the part of state authorities. Relevant portion of the judgment rendered in the case of Bherulal (supra) is as follows:-

¶21

"4. A reading of the aforesaid application shows that the reason for such an inordinate delay is stated to be only "due to unavailability of the documents and the process of arranging the documents". In para 4, a reference has been made to "bureaucratic process works, it is inadvertent that delay occurs".

¶22

5. A preposterous proposition is sought to be propounded that if there is some merit in the case, the period of delay is to be given a go-by. If a case is good on merits, it will succeed in any case. It is really a bar of limitation which can even shut out good cases. This does not, of course, take away the jurisdiction of the Court in an appropriate case to condone the delay.

¶23

6. We are also of the view that the aforesaid approach is being

¶24

adopted in what we have categorised earlier as "certificate cases". The object appears to be to obtain a certificate of dismissal from the Supreme Court to put a quietus to the issue and thus, say that nothing could be done because the highest Court has dismissed the appeal. It is to complete this formality and save the skin of officers who may be at default that such a process is followed. We have on earlier occasions also strongly deprecated such a practice and process. There seems to be no improvement. The purpose of coming to this Court is not to obtain such certificates and if the Government suffers losses, it is time when the officer concerned responsible for the same bears the consequences. The irony is that in none of the cases any action is taken against the officers, who sit on the files and do nothing. It is presumed that this Court will condone the delay and even in making submissions, straightaway the counsel appear to address on merits without referring even to the aspect of limitation as happened in this case till we pointed out to the counsel that he must first address us on the question of limitation."

¶25

Relevant portion of the judgment rendered in the case of Postmaster General (supra) is as follows:-

¶26

"29. 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 bona fide 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 the government departments. The law shelters everyone under

¶27

the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few."

¶28

Upon applicability of aforesaid judgment in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it is quite evident that virtually no explanation has been put forth by the state from April, 1991 till November, 1991 for having taking any steps regarding proposal to file appeal against order of prescribed authority. Already a certain leeway has been provided to state authorities in terms of Section 32(2) of the Act, 1960.

¶29

In view of aforesaid, it is quite evident that the State failed miserably to explain the considerable delay in filing appeal. No exception can be taken to the order impugned in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost.

¶30

Order Date :- 4.4.2024 prabhat

¶31

Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

State of U.P. v. Addl.Commissioner Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. v. Addl.Commissioner Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinay Kumar Jain and Ors. Vs Smt. Raj Kumari Shukla and Ors.

Mathura Prasad and Another Vs State of U.P. through Its Secy.Revenue Dept.Lucknow and Ors.

Sudheer Kumar Dixit S/O Ambika Prasad Dixit Vs State of U.P. Thru Secretary Revenue and Ors.

Devendra Kumar Prajapati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 9 Others

Jainul Abdeen Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Lko and Others

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies U.P. Lko. and 4 Others