Dismissed

State v. Bidyadhar Behera

Orissa HC4 Dec 2023LAA/111/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa dismissed an appeal and a miscellaneous case filed by the State of Odisha against a civil judgment. The court held the matter barred by delay and laches, rejecting the State's explanation of procedural red tape, citing Supreme Court precedents requiring bonafide efforts for condonation.

What did the court decide?

The Misc. Case and the Appeal preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, are dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

State Vs Bidyadhar Behera — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

LAA No.111 of 2013

¶3

State of Odisha

¶4

Appellant

¶5

Mr. T. Pattnaik, ASC

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Bidyadhar Behera & Anr.

¶8

…. Respondents

¶9

Mr. A.K. Nath, Adv. (R.1) Mr.P.K. Pattnaik, Adv. (R.2)

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

¶11

Order No. 05.

¶12

ORDER 04.12.2023 LAA No.111 of 2013 & Misc. Case No.29 of 2014

¶13

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶14

1. Learned Counsel for the parties are present.

¶15

This Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 16.05.2011, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Athmallik in L.A. Misc. Case No.01/2009.

¶16

As it seems from record, though the appeal was presented on 06.11.2013 by the State-Appellants, Misc. Case No.29 of 2014 for condonation of delay was filed on 01.02.2014 .

¶17

As per the office note, there is a delay of 2 years 107 days in filing the present Appeal. The reasons indicated in the Misc. Case for delay in preferring the Appeal are not convincing. That apart, the delay has not been properly explained. Further, though the Application for condonation of delay is pending since 2014, no step was taken by the State-Appellants to expedite the process of

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

disposal of the said petition.

¶20

The apex Court in the case of Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vrs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563 observed as under:

¶21

“12) It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us.

¶22

Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. 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.

¶23

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 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 departments. The law shelters

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

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, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.”

¶26

Also, in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Odisha Vrs. Surama Manjari Das (W.P.(C) No.15763 of 2021 dismissed on 16.07.2021), which has been passed relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh Vrs. Bherulal , reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 849, this Appeal deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

¶27

Accordingly, Misc. Case as well as Appeal preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, stand dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

¶28

(S. K. MISHRA) JUDGE

¶29

Banita

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI Designation: JR. STENOGRAPHER Reason: AUTHENTICATION Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 05-Dec-2023 16:23:38

¶32

Page 3 of 3

State v. Bidyadhar Behera

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State v. Bidyadhar Behera

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

Nanda Kishore Mallik Vs Jadi Mallik

Raghunath Vs Spl.Land Acquistion

Pramod Ku.Samantaray Vs Sail,Ispat Bhawan

Haridhan Dey Vs Addl.Dist,Magistrate

M/S.O.L.I.C.Ltd Vs Reg.Dir,Esic and Ors.

M/S.Guidance English Medium School Vs Asst.Director Revenue,Employees State Insurance Cor.,Bbsr