Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra v. Raosaheb Tukaram Mundhe and Another

Bombay HC21 Aug 2014CA/2902/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court rejected a Civil Application by the State of Maharashtra seeking condonation of a 794-day delay in filing a First Appeal against a Land Acquisition Award. The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause, finding internal administrative lethargy an insufficient excuse.

What did the court decide?

Civil Application for condonation of delay is rejected.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Raosaheb Tukaram… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

G.A.Ghule [P.A.]

¶2

1/7

¶3

ca 2902.14 in fast 3850.14 (order i).sxw

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

¶5

Civil Application No.2902 Of 2014. In

¶6

F.A.(St.) No.3850/14.

¶7

C.A. No.2902 Of 2014.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra. :: Applicant.

¶9

V e r s u s

¶10

Raosaheb Tukaram Mundhe & Ors. :: Respondents.

¶11

Appearance =>

¶12

Mrs. V.A. Shinde, A.G.P. for the State of Maharashtra.

¶13

Mr. G.K. Sontakke, Advocate for the Original Claimants.

¶14

CORAM : K.K. Tated, J. DATE : 21^st August, 2014.

¶15

Per Court :-

¶16

Heard Mrs. V.A. Shinde, learned A.G.P. for the State of Maharashtra and Mr. G.K. Sontakke, learned counsel for Respondent No.1.

¶17

[2] This Application is preferred by original Respondent No.1 – State of Maharashtra for condonation of delay of 794 days caused in preferring the First Appeal challenging the Judgment and Award dated 17^th August, 2011 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Udgir, Dist. Latur in L.A.R. No.1829 Of 2010 (Old No.444/2008).

¶18

2/7 ca 2902.14 in fast 3850.14 (order i).sxw

¶19

[3] Mrs. V.A. Shinde, the learned A.G.P. submits that, for preferring the first appeal they require to take approval from several department. Since the impugned order is passed by the reference court, the learned Government Pleader who appeared before the reference court submits its opinion to the Law & Judiciary Department. Thereafter, Law & Judiciary Department scrutinized the proposal and collected the information from the concerned Department for who land is acquired. Thereafter Govt. decided to prefer an appeal and L & J Department sent sanction to the office of the Government Pleader, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad for preferring the first appeal. She submits that, in the present proceedings, office of the Govt.Pleader, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad received communication dated 7^th December, 2013 from the Law & Judiciary Department, State of Maharashtra for preferring present First Appeal, in this Court. Thereafter, they immediately assigned the matter to the concerned Asstt. Govt.Pleader for drafting the Appeal Memo on 10^th December, 2013. The concerned A.G.P drafted the Appeal Memo immediately. At the time of secularizing the matter, they learnt that difference chart for calculating the courts fees and typed copies of the Judgment and Award and requisite court fees were not accompanied with the proposal.

¶20

[4] The concerned A.G.P. immediately sent letter on dated 12/12/13 calling upon the concerned authority to forward the typed copies of Judgment and Award and requisite amount of court fees. Mrs. V.A. Shinde, learned A.G.P. further submits that, the Office of Govt.Pleader, High Court at Aurangabad received typed copies of the Judgment and Court Fees on 07/01/14. Thereafter, they immediately preferred this First Appeal in this court on 13/02/14. Mrs.V.A. Shinde, learned A.G.P. submits that for following the procedure for preferring the first appeal, delay caused in preferring the present appeal.

¶21

3/7

¶22

ca 2902.14 in fast 3850.14 (order i).sxw

¶23

[5] In support of these facts, Mrs. V.A. Shinde, learned A.G.P. relied on the paragraph Nos. 3 and 4 of the Civil Application, which reads thus :-

¶24

“ 3. The applicant submit that thereafter, the proposal sent by the concerned A.G.P. was scrutinized by the office of the Law and Judiciary Department, Aurangabad and thereafter, office of Law and Judiciary Department, Aurangabad forwarded the said proposal to the office of the Government Pleader, High Court Bench at Aurangabad by its letter dt. 07.12.2013 for filing appeal.”

¶25

“4 . The applicant submit that, thereafter, the Government Pleader has allotted the said proposal alongwith other proposals alongwith other proposal for drafting appeal memo to the concerned A.G.P. On 10/12/2013. The appeal memo immediately drafted. The applicant submit that, while scrutinizing the said proposal, difference chart and typed copies of judgment and order, court fees were not accompanied with the proposal, therefore, the concerned A.G.P. has communicated the authorities to forward the said copies by letter dt. 12/12/2013. The applicant submit that, in response to the above communications of this office, typed copies of judgment and Award / order are received on 07/01/2014 and difference chart for calculating Court Fees is received on 07/01/2014.”

¶26

[6] Mrs. V.A. Shinde, learned A.G.P. for the State of Maharashtra submits that in the interest of justice this Hon'ble Court be pleased to condone the delay caused in preferring the First Appeal. She submits that, if delay is not condoned, an irreparable loss and injury will be caused to them.

¶27

4/7 ca 2902.14 in fast 3850.14 (order i).sxw

¶28

She further submits that, Office of the Government Pleader, High Court at Aurangabad received the proposal vide communication dated 07/12/13 and thereafter, they immediately taken the steps for preferring the First Appeal. Hence, delay caused in preferring the First Appeal be condoned.

¶29

[7] On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 vehemently opposed the present Civil Application. He submits that, the Applicant has not shown sufficient cause for condonation of more than 794 days delay caused in preferring the First Appeal.

¶30

[8] I have heard the learned counsel at length. In the present proceedings,

¶31

[i] Reference Court has passed the Judgment and Award, on :-

¶32

17/08/2011.

¶33

[ii] Appellant filed an application for obtaining the certified copies of the judgment and award, on :-

¶34

29/08/2011.

¶35

[iii] Certified copies were ready for delivery on :-

¶36

23/09/2011.

¶37

[iv] Sanction to prefer F.A, granted by L&J Deptt. on :-

¶38

07/12/2013.

¶39

[v] Applicant preferred present F.A. in the High Court on :-

¶40

13/02/2014.

¶41

[9] It is to be noted that, the applicant has not explained in the Civil Application, as to why, the Law and Judiciary Department took more than than 2 ½ years time to take the decision to prefer the First Appeal in this Court.

¶42

5/7

¶43

ca 2902.14 in fast 3850.14 (order i).sxw

¶44

[10] Bare reading of the Civil Application and particularly paragraph Nos. 3 and 4 show that, the applicant has not explained as to why they took more than 2 ½ years for filing First Appeal, in this Court, from the receipt of the certified copy on 23^rd September, 2011.

¶45

[11] It will be useful to cite relevant authoritative pronouncement/s of the High Court and Hon'ble Apex Court.

¶46

[i] The Apex Court in the matter of Damodar Pillai V/s. The South Indian Bank Ltd, 2005(5) All.M.R. 961 (S.C.) held that hardship or injustice is not a ground for extending the period of limitation.

¶47

[ii] Our High Court in the matter of The Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. V/s. Jose Prezares De Piedade Pinto, 2006(2) Bom.C.R. 773 held that delay caused due to movement of file from one table to another cannot be a reason for condonation of delay.

¶48

[iii] The Apex Court in the matter of Pundlik Jalam Patil V/s. Ex.Engg. Jalgaon Medium Project and Ors, 2008(6) B.C.R., 513 held that unless and until sufficient cause is shown, inordinate delay should not be condoned.

¶49

[iv] The Apex Court in the matter of The Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Bhilwara V/s. Labour Court, Bhilwara & Anr. 2009(3) S.C.C., 525 held that while dismissing an Appeal on the ground of limitation, going into the merits of the case is not allowed.

¶50

6/7

¶51

ca 2902.14 in fast 3850.14 (order i).sxw

¶52

[v] The Apex Court in the matter of The Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Limited V/s. The Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, reported in 2010 (5) S.C.C. 459, held that in the absence of sufficient cause, Court should not condone the delay.

¶53

[vi] The Apex Court in the matter of Maniben Devraj Shah V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Brihan, Mumbai, reported in 2012 (5) S.C.C., 157, held that no premium be given for total lethargy or utter negligence of State officers/machinery/agency/ instrumentality and condonation of delay caused by such officer cannot be allowed as a matter of course by accepting the plea that dismissal on the ground of limitation will caused injury to public interest.

¶54

[vii] The Apex Court in the case of B.Madhuri Gaud V/s. B. Damodar Reddy, 2012 (12) S.C.C., 693 held that if sufficient cause is not shown, delay should not be condoned.

¶55

[viii] The Apex Court in the matter of Office of Chief Post Master General and Ors. V/s. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr., 2012 All S.C.R., 892 held that delay attributed in personal machinery and methodology, cannot be condoned in view of modern technology use.

¶56

[ix] Recently, the Apex Court in the matter of Esha Bhattacharajee V/s. The Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, 2013(12) S.C 450 held that if sufficient cause is not shown, application for condonation of delay is rejected.

¶57

7/7

¶58

ca 2902.14 in fast 3850.14 (order i).sxw

¶59

[13] Considering the facts as stated herein-above, and the authoritative pronouncements of the the High Court and Hon'ble Apex Court, I am of the opinion that Applicant has failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of 794 days delay caused in preferring the First Appeal challenging the Judgment and Award dated 17^th August, 2011 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Udgir, Dist. Latur in L.A.R. No.1829 Of 2010 (Old No.444/2008). I do not find any substance in the present Civil Application. Hence, Civil Application is rejected.

¶60

(K.K. TATED, J.)

The State of Maharashtra v. Raosaheb Tukaram Mundhe and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Raosaheb Tukaram Mundhe and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sujanrao Bhagoji Shelar and Others Vs Babasaheb Rambhau Ghadge and Another

Jugalkishor Bansilal Gindodiya and Others Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer General, Dhule and Others

Dinesh Ghevarchand Khivsara Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer General, Dhule and Others

The State of Maharashtra Vs Raosaheb Tukaram Mundhe and Another

The State of Maharashtra Vs Madhukar Shankar Mundhe and Another

The State of Maharashtra Vs Madhukar Shankar Mundhe and Another