Dismissed¶54

The Special Tahsildar v. Velusamy Gounder

Madras HC16 Apr 2025CMP/25575/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; 897 days; Order 41 Rule 3A of CPC; section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act; appeal suits against LAOP.Nos.9, 6, 3, 8, 4, 2 & 1 of 2009 (14.11.2016) and LAOP.No.5 of 2009 (21.08.2017), Subordinate Court, Dharapuram; insufficient cause; vague affidavit; case papers misplaced; corona virus lockdown; Government department appeals; protracting payment of land acquisition compensation; State of Tamil Nadu and Ors Vs. Melvisharam Muslim Educational Society, 2018 [3] CTC 420; Madras High Court; N. Sathish Kumar, J.; 16.04.2025; CMP.Nos.25575, 25623, 25626, 25642, 25655, 25659, 25666 & 25701 of 2023; petitions dismissed, un-numbered Appeal Suits rejected.

What did the court decide?

Once a matter has been decided on the settled position of law, it cannot be re-opened based on the routine reasons assigned for condonation of delay.

The Special Tahsildar Vs Velusamy Gounder — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶54

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 897 days in filing the appeal suits against the orders in LAOP.Nos.9, 6, 3, 8, 4, 2 & 1 of 2009 dated 14.11.2016 and LAOP.No.5 of 2009 dated 21.08.2017 (Subordinate Court, Dharapuram) should be condoned.

¶36

Court's answer

Once a matter has been decided on the settled position of law, it cannot be re-opened based on the routine reasons assigned for condonation of delay.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

A petition casually filed to condone a huge delay of 897 days in filing the appeal, without any proper reasons, cannot be granted; a Court granting indulgence must be satisfied that there was diligence on the part of the appellants.

¶41

Key takeaways

Where there is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay, the delay cannot be condoned as a matter of right.ratio¶41
On the facts, the affidavits filed with the petitions contained only very casual allegations, indicating that the delayed appeals were filed only to protract payment of the compensation fixed by the reference Court.ratio¶53
Such an approach amounts to taking away the constitutional right of the parties; accordingly, the Court finds no merits in these petitions.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (N. Sathish Kumar, J.; 16.04.2025) dismissed eight CMPs filed by the Special Tahsildar [Land Acquisition], Nallathangal Oodai Neerthekka Thittam, Dharapuram, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharapuram, and the Executive Engineer, WRO/PWD, Amaravathi Basin Division, Karur, seeking condonation of a delay of 897 days (under Order 41 Rule 3A of CPC and under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act) in filing appeal suits against the orders in LAOP.Nos.9, 6, 3, 8, 4, 2 & 1 of 2009 dated 14.11.2016 and LAOP.No.5 of 2009 dated 21.08.2017 of the Subordinate Court, Dharapuram. The affidavit assigned only routine grounds - case papers mixed up with other files and lockdown due to corona virus - with no other explanation. Holding that a matter already decided on the settled position of law cannot be re-opened on routine reasons, that a casually filed petition for condonation of a huge delay without proper reasons cannot be granted and that absent sufficient cause delay cannot be condoned as a matter of right, the Court relied on State of Tamil Nadu and Ors Vs. Melvisharam Muslim Educational Society, 2018 [3] CTC 420, found the affidavits bereft of details and the appeals filed only to protract payment of compensation fixed by the reference Court - an approach taking away the constitutional right of the parties - and dismissed the petitions, rejecting the un-numbered Appeal Suits, with no costs.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 16.04.2025

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶5

CMP.Nos.25575, 25623, 25626, 25642, 25655, 25659, 25666 & 25701 of 2023 &

¶6

AS SR Nos.39392, 39393, 39394, 39395, 39396, 39397, 39398, 39399 of 2021

¶7

CMP.No.25575 of 2023 & ASSR No. 39399 of 2021

¶8

The Special Tahsildar [Land Acquisition], Nallathangal Oodai Neerthekka Thittam, Dharapuram.

¶9

The Revenue Divisional officer, Dharapuram.

¶10

The Executive Engineer WRO / PWD, Amaravathi Basin Division, Karur. ... Petitioner(s)

¶11

¶12

Velusamy Gounder ... Respondent(s)

¶13

CMP.No.25623 of 2023 & ASSR No. 39397 of 2021

¶14

The Special Tahsildar [Land Acquisition], Nallathangal Oodai Neerthekka Thittam, Dharapuram.

¶15

The Revenue Divisional officer, Dharapuram.

¶16

The Executive Engineer WRO / PWD,

¶17

1/9

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

Amaravathi Basin Division, Karur. Vs	... Petitioner(s)
S.Thirumalaisamy	... Respondent(s)
CMP.No.25626 of 2023 & ASSR No. 39396 of 2021
1. The Special Tahsildar [Land Acquisition], Nallathangal Oodai Neerthekka Thittam, Dharapuram.
2. The Revenue Divisional officer, Dharapuram.
3. The Executive Engineer WRO / PWD, Amaravathi Basin Division, Karur.	... Petitioner(s)
Vs C.Duraisamy	... Respondent(s)
CMP.No.25642 of 2023 & ASSR No. 39394 of 2021
1. The Special Tahsildar [Land Acquisition], Nallathangal Oodai Neerthekka Thittam, Dharapuram.
2. The Revenue Divisional officer, Dharapuram.
3. The Executive Engineer WRO / PWD, Amaravathi Basin Division, Karur.	... Petitioner(s)
Vs Ramaathal	... Respondent(s)
CMP.No.25655 of 2023 & ASSR No. 39398 of 2021
1. The Special Tahsildar [Land Acquisition], Nallathangal Oodai Neerthekka Thittam, 2/9

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

Dharapuram. 2. The Revenue Divisional officer, Dharapuram. 3. The Executive Engineer WRO / PWD, Amaravathi Basin Division, Karur. ... Petitioner(s) Vs

¶22

Chellamuthu Gounder [died] 1. Thirumathal 2. Paulraj 3. Kalaiselvi 4. Thirumathal ... Respondent(s) CMP.No.25659 of 2023 & ASSR No. 39395 of 2021 1. The Special Tahsildar [Land Acquisition], Nallathangal Oodai Neerthekka Thittam, Dharapuram. 2. The Revenue Divisional officer, Dharapuram. 3. The Executive Engineer WRO / PWD, Amaravathi Basin Division, Karur. ... Petitioner(s) Vs

¶23

P.S.Palanisamy ... Respondent(s) CMP.No.25666 of 2023 & ASSR No. 39393 of 2021 1. The Special Tahsildar [Land Acquisition], Nallathangal Oodai Neerthekka Thittam, Dharapuram. 2. The Revenue Divisional officer, Dharapuram. 3. The Executive Engineer WRO / PWD, Amaravathi Basin Division, Karur. ... Petitioner(s) 3/9

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

Vs Karupanna Gounder ... Respondent(s)

¶26

CMP.No.25701 of 2023 & ASSR No. 39392 of 2021

¶27

The Special Tahsildar [Land Acquisition], Nallathangal Oodai Neerthekka Thittam, Dharapuram.

¶28

The Revenue Divisional officer, Dharapuram.

¶29

The Executive Engineer WRO / PWD, Amaravathi Basin Division, Karur. ... Petitioner(s)

¶30

Vs T.Subramani ... Respondent(s)

¶31

Common Prayer: Petitions filed under Order 41 Rule 3A of CPC to condone the delay of 897 days, in filing the appeal suit and under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act as against the Order passed in LAOP.Nos.9, 6, 3, 8, 4, 2 & 1 of 2009 dated 14.11.2016 and LAOP.No.5 of 2009, dated 21.08.2017 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Dharapuram.

¶32

For Petitioners : Mr.C.Sathish, Government Advocate in all CMPs. & ASs For Respondents : Mr.S.K.Kharventhan & Mr.Ponraj in CMP.Nos.25659, 25623, 25626 & 25701 of 2023, for R1 in CMP.No.25727 of 2023 and for R3 and R4 in CMP.No. 25655 of 2023

¶33

4/9

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

COMMON ORDER

¶36

These petitions have been filed to condone the delay of 897 days, in the filing the appeal suits as against the Order passed in LAOP.Nos.9, 6, 3, 8, 4, 2 & 1 of 2009 dated 14.11.2016 and LAOP.No.5 of 2009, dated 21.08.2017 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Dharapuram.

¶37

The reason assigned for the delay is that the case papers have been mixed up with other files and the same could not be traced and the delay in filing the appeal is mainly due to delay in tracing the entire case papers and lockdown effected due to corona virus. Except that ground, no other reasons have been assigned in the entire affidavit. This Court is of the view that once the matter has been decided on the settled position of law, now, the matter cannot be re-opened based on the routine reasons assigned for condoning the delay.

¶38

Entire affidavit is bereft of any details and no explanation whatsoever has been given to condone such a huge delay. To show liberal approach for condoning such a huge delay, there should be atleast some

¶39

5/9

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

convincing reason and sufficient cause has to be shown to advance substantive justice. Casually filing a petition to condone huge delay of 897 days in filing the appeal without any proper reasons, such huge delay cannot be condoned. A Court granting indulgence must be satisfied that there was diligence on the part of the appellants. When there is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay, the said delay cannot be condoned as a matter of right.

¶42

In this regard it is useful to refer the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu and Ors Vs. Melvisharam Muslim Educational Society reported in 2018 [3] CTC 420 , wherein the Division Bench of this has held as follows :

¶43

“... Though the delay is condoned by the Court normally in a liberal manner, the said approach cannot be extended mechanically without any plausible explanation. What is pitted against an ordinary litigant is also pitted against the Government before Court of law to establish a particular fact. Though the word “sufficient cause” has to be given a liberal approach, to exercise discretion for such liberal approach, there must be necessary facts in the affidavit filed in support of the same. But, on a perusal of the affidavit, we do not find plausible explanation for such delay except stating that there is an administrative delay. Such vague and bald explanation

¶44

6/9

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

cannot be accepted mechanically. When Courts are extending such liberal approach mechanically, it has become a routine

¶47

affairs of the Government Departments to file the appeals against every order passed by the Court. The present day scenario in filing the appeal, challenging every order by the Government Departments, clearly exhibits shirking responsibility of the Department Heads. In fact, now the tendency has developed among the Department Heads, not to take any risk and to avoid any question relate to the litigant and only in order to avoid any query, the administrative side files these types of appeals, though there is no merit in the appeal.

¶48

The Court, in exercising discretion, particularly in these types of petitions, has to see the conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence. The above factors are relevant to be taken into consideration as the fundamental principle is that Courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go-by in the name of liberal approach. There is an increasing tendency to perceive delay even in a non-serious matter. Hence, the delay due to nonchalant attitude should be curbed at the initial stage itself.

¶49

Considering the above aspects and further the affidavit filed for condoning the delay, did not contain any details as to how the delay of 1860 days had occurred and that

¶50

7/9

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

no plausible and proper explanation was assigned for each and every day's delay, we are of the view that it is a fit case where the discretion cannot be exercised for condonation of the delay.”

¶53

In the case on hand, the affidavits filed along with the petitions indicate that very casual allegations have been made and the same indicate that only to protract payment of compensation fixed by the reference Court, these appeals have been filed with such a huge delay. Such approach is nothing but to take away constitutional right of the parties. Hence, I do not find any merits in these petitions.

¶54

Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed and un-numbered Appeal Suits are rejected. No costs.

¶55

16.04.2025

¶56

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No vrc To,

¶57

The Subordinate Judge, Dharapuram.

¶58

8/9

¶59

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶60

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶61

vrc

¶62

CMP.Nos.25575, 25623, 25626, 25642, 25655, 25659, 25666 & 25701 of 2023 & AS SR Nos.39392, 39393, 39394, 39395, 39396, 39397, 39398, 39399 of 2021

¶63

16.04.2025

¶64

9/9

¶65

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

The Special Tahsildar v. Velusamy Gounder

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Special Tahsildar v. Velusamy Gounder

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Sheela Vs R.Visalatchi

M.Eswaramoorthy Vs S.Jeyabalan

R. Sudhakar Vs v. Ranganathan

The Special Tahsildar Vs Rajkumar Mandradiyar

A.Vellaisamy, Vs K.S.S. Raju

The Inspector General of Registration Vs Meena. K