Dismissed¶24

State v. Bhaskar Rout

Orissa HC16 Feb 2024LAA/102/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

condonation of delay; delay and laches; government appeal; delay of 4 years 304 days; LAA No.102 of 2010; Section 54 Land Acquisition Act 1894; L.A. Case No.188/2002 Civil Judge (Senior Division) Dhenkanal; Living Media India Ltd (2012) 3 SCC 563; State of Odisha v. Surama Manjari Das W.P.(C) No.15763 of 2021; State of M.P. v. Bherulal 2020 SCC Online SC 849; appeal and misc. case dismissed; State of Orissa v. Bhaskar Rout & ors.

What did the court decide?

The reasons indicated in the Misc. Case for the delay in preferring the appeal are not convincing, and the delay has not been properly explained. ¶15

State Vs Bhaskar Rout — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 4 years 304 days in preferring the appeal should be condoned, i.e., whether the reasons offered in Misc. Case No.160 of 2016 are convincing. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

The reasons indicated in the Misc. Case for the delay in preferring the appeal are not convincing, and the delay has not been properly explained.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

In view of the apex Court's decision in Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd., (2012) 3 SCC 563, and this Court's decision in State of Odisha v. Surama Manjari Das (W.P.(C) No.15763 of 2021, itself passed relying on The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bherulal, 2020 SCC Online SC 849), the appeal deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

¶23

Key takeaways

The Misc. Case as well as the appeal preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 stand dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, LAA No.102 of 2010 (State of Orissa v. Bhaskar Rout & ors.), order dated 16.02.2023 by Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra: Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the judgment dated 13.07.2005 of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dhenkanal in L.A. Case No.188/2002, along with Misc. Case No.160 of 2016 seeking condonation of a delay of 4 years 304 days in presentation of the appeal (appeal presented 13.08.2010; Misc. Case filed 02.08.2016), dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. The reasons for delay were held unconvincing and the delay improperly explained, with no step taken since 2016 to expedite disposal of the condonation petition. Reliance was placed on Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr., (2012) 3 SCC 563, and on this Court's decision in State of Odisha v. Surama Manjari Das, W.P.(C) No.15763 of 2021 (decided 16.07.2021), which itself rested on The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bherulal, 2020 SCC Online SC 849.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

LAA No.102 of 2010

¶3

State of Orissa

Appellant

Mr. A. Behera, ASC

-versus-

Bhaskar Rout & ors.

¶8

Respondents

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

¶10

Order No.

¶11

07.

¶12

ORDER 16.02.2023 LAA No.102 of 2010 & Misc. Case No.160 of 2016 This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶13

This Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 13.07.2005, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dhenkanal in L.A. Case No.188/2002.

¶14

As it seems from record, though the appeal was presented on 13.08.2010 by the State-Appellant, Misc. Case No.160 of 2016 for condonation of delay was filed on 02.08.2016 .

¶15

As per the office note, there is a delay of 4 years 304 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 2016, no step was taken by the StateAppellant to expedite the process of disposal of the said petition.

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

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:

¶18

“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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

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 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.”

¶23

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.

¶24

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. 8. Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the court below as well as the Private Respondents.

¶25

Banita

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI Designation: SR. STENOGRAPHER Reason: AUTHENTICATION Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 19-Feb-2024 17:27:58

¶28

Page 3 of 3

State v. Bhaskar Rout

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State v. Bhaskar Rout

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

Rasmita Mishra Vs the President,the Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Ctc.

Susanta Patra Vs State and Ors.

Maa Laxmi Self Help Group Vs State of Odisha

State Vs Prahallad Barik

Saroj Ranjan Pradhan Vs M/S.Srei Equipment Finance Ltd.

Sukanti Nayak Vs State of Orissa