State appeal filed with a delay of 2 years and 58 days; delay not satisfactorily explained. Following Supreme Court precedent on government departments not being entitled to liberal condonation, the High Court dismissed the application for condonation and the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
LAA No.139 of 2010
L.A. Collector, Balasore & anr.
…. Appellants Mr. B. Panigrahi, ASC
-versus-
Kanchan Giri & ors.
…. Respondents
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
Order No. 05.
ORDER 16.01.2024 Misc. Case No.29 of 2012 & LAA No.139 of 2010 This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Page 1 of 3
pleadings made in the Misc. Case, the said delay of 2 years and 58 days has not been properly explained and the reasons assigned in the application is not convincing.
“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.
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.
Page 2 of 3
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.”
Banita
(S.K. MISHRA)
JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI Designation: SR. STENOGRAPHER Reason: AUTHENTICATION Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 17-Jan-2024 17:52:18
Page 3 of 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the delay of 2 years and 58 days in filing the appeal under the Land Acquisition Act should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vrs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr.Relied on¶6
(2012) 3 SCC 563 · Who else cites this
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vrs. BherulalRelied on¶7
2020 SCC Online SC 849 · Who else cites this
State of Odisha Vrs. Surama Manjari DasRelied on¶7
W.P.(C) No.15763 of 2021
2 provisions across 2 enactments
L.A. Collector, Balasore
Kanchan Giri
Sanjay Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
