Land Aq.Officer Vs Raja Sahu

2. These I.As. have been filed by the Appellant to condone the delay, set aside the abatement of Appeal and for substitution of the legal heirs of the deceasedRespondent No.4.

¶16

3. As per the office note AD of notice issued on substitution matter not returned from PLR of Respondent Nos.5(a) & 5(b). Since, the unserved notice also have not returned, in terms of the provision enshrined in Sub-Rule (5) of Rule-9 under Order 5 of C.P.C. read with Section 27 of the General Clause Act, 1897, notice on the said Opposite Parties is deemed be sufficient.

¶17

4. In view of the stand taken in the I.As. so also submission made by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, delay in filing applications for setting aside abatement so also for substitution is condoned.

¶18

5. Accordingly, the applications for setting aside abatement and substitution are also allowed. The legal

¶19

heirs of Respondent No.2 be substituted, as proposed in the schedule.

¶20

6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant is directed to file the consolidated cause title of the Memorandum of Appeal after serving copy of the same on the State-Respondent by 17^th September, 2024.

¶21

7. Accordingly, all the I.As. stand allowed and disposed of.

(S. K. MISHRA)

JUDGE

Mona

L.A.A. No.26 of 2006 & Misc. Case No.112 of 2006

¶26

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶27

2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶28

3. This Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 05.05.2004, passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Angul in L.A. Misc. Case No.210 of 1997.

¶29

4. As it seems from the record, though the Appeal was presented on 02.06.2006 by the State-Appellant, Misc. Case No.112 of 2006 for condonation of delay was filed on 02.08.2006.

¶30

5. As per the office note, there is a delay of 550 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 2006, no step was taken by the State-Appellant to expedite the process of disposal of the

¶31

Page 2 of 5

¶32

said petition.

¶33

6. 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:

¶34

“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.

¶35

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.

¶36

13) In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that

¶37

Page 3 of 5

¶38

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.”

¶39

7. 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.

¶40

8. 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.

¶41

9. In view of the dismissal of the Appeal, the State-

¶42

Page 4 of 5

¶43

Appellant is directed to implement the judgment dated 05.08.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (S.D), Angul in L.A. Case No.210 of 1997 within a period of three months hence.

¶44

(S. K. Mishra)

¶45

Judge

¶46

Signature Not Verified

¶47

Digitally Signed Signed by: MONALISA SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Odisha Date: 14-Sep-2024 14:04:41

¶48

Page 5 of 5

Land Aq.Officer v. Raja Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Land Aq.Officer v. Raja Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dusmanta Kumar Das Vs the Thasildar, Kendrapara

Sappa Mahalaxmi Vs Land Aq.Officer

Nilima Kumari Debnath Vs State Level Scrutiny Committee, Cuttack

Spl.Land Aq.Officer Vs Sanatan Barik

Trilochan Sahu Vs Land Ac.Zone Officer

Basanti Kumari Sethi Vs State of Odisha