Dismissed

State v. Mandardhar Nayak

Orissa HC19 Jan 2024LAA/108/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal regarding land acquisition compensation, the High Court of Orissa held that the condonation of delay application was rejected. The court found the reasons for delay unconvincing and applied Supreme Court precedents to dismiss the appeal due to laches and delay.

What did the court decide?

The I.A. for condonation of delay was dismissed; the Appeal was dismissed on grounds of delay and laches.

State Vs Mandardhar Nayak — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

LAA No.108 of 2010

¶3

State of Orissa & ors.

¶4

Appellants

¶5

Mr. T. Pattnaik, ASC

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Mandardhar Nayak & ors.

¶8

…. Respondents

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

ORDER

Order No. 07.

19.01.2024

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶14

On perusal of record, it is ascertained that pursuant to order dated 13.11.2023 & 13.12.2023, the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Cuttack City Division, Cuttack, has given a report to the Superintendent, First Appeal Section of this Court indicating therein that a query being made by the post man, it was found that the addressee has moved from the said address. Based on the collected records, it has also been indicated in the said report that it is evident that the said addressee had not intimated the concerned Post Office regarding the change of his address. Therefore the postal article was returned on the same date by the Post Man with a remark “Addressee left. Hence, return to the sender”.

¶15

In view of the said report of the concerned officer of the Postal Department so also settled position of law ,as reported in AIR 1989 SC page-630, the notice on the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are deemed to be sufficient.

¶16

Accordingly, I.A. for condonation of delay is taken up.

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

As per the Office note, after deducting the statutory period of limitation of 90 days, there is a delay of 281 days in presenting the memorandum of appeal.

¶19

Further, though this appeal is pending since 2010, no endeavor was made to expedite the disposal of the memorandum of appeal. Also, the reasons assigned in the I.A. for condonation of delay has neither been properly explained nor the same is convincing.

¶20

Apart from the same, on perusal of the impugned judgment, it is found that the court below has assigned sufficient reason in paragraph nos.6 to 10 of the impugned judgment , justifying enhancement of the compensation amount from Rs. 1,93,800/- to Rs.3,78,500/- which includes enhanced value of Gharabari Kisam of land, cost of the constructed house over the said acquired land, damage towards change of the residence so also additional market value @ 12% on the enhanced compensation amount.

¶21

Apart from the same the court below has awarded solatium @ 30% of the market value so also interest payable from the date of award.

¶22

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:

¶23

“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

¶24

Page 2 of 4

¶25

because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us.

¶26

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.

¶27

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 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.”

¶28

Also, in view of the judgment/order 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

¶29

Page 3 of 4

¶30

849, this Appeal deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

¶31

Accordingly, the I.A. stands dismissed. Consequentially, the Appeal also stands dismissed.

¶32

In view of the dismissal of the appeal at this stage, Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the court below so also the private Respondents.

Banita

(S.K. MISHRA)

JUDGE

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Digitally Signed Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI Designation: SR. STENOGRAPHER Reason: AUTHENTICATION Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 22-Jan-2024 11:59:15

¶38

Page 4 of 4

State v. Mandardhar Nayak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State v. Mandardhar Nayak

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

Brundabana Sahu Vs N.I.a.Co.Ltd.

Gayatri Patel Vs Special L.a.O.,Ultra Mega Power Project-Cum-Sub-Collector,Sundargarh

Jaya Hanuman Mission Shakti Womens Self Help Group Vs State of Orissa

Director,Interim Test Range Vs Kamala Kanta Sethi

Girija Devi Vs Subash Ch. Agarwala

Chakradhar Behera Vs Cm,Cuttack Municpal