Dismissed

State v. Bhimasen Palei

Orissa HC12 Jan 2024LAA/31/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa at Cuttack dismissed an appeal and a miscellaneous case filed by the State of Odisha against a judgment regarding land acquisition. The court held that the delay in filing the appeal (581 days) was excessive and not properly explained. Relying on Supreme Court precedents and prior rulings, the court ruled that government departments cannot mechanically condone such delays

What did the court decide?

The appeal and Misc. Case No.98 of 2010 are dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Court below and private respondents.

State Vs Bhimasen Palei — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

L.A.A No.31 of 2010

¶3

State of Odisha

Appellants

Mr. A. Behera, ASC

Vs.

Bhimsen Palei & others

¶8

….. Respondents

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

¶10

ORDER

¶11

12.01.2024

¶12

Misc. Case No.98 of 2010 & LAA No.31 of 2010

¶13

Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 07.

¶14

Learned Counsel for the State/Appellants is present.

¶15

This Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 16.05.2008, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Keonjhar in L.A. Misc. Case No.22/06.

¶16

As per the office note, there is a delay of 581 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.

¶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

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

1. 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.”

¶23

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

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

In view of the dismissal of the Appeal at this stage, Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Court below so also the private Respondents to do the further needful in accordance with law.

¶28

(S.K.MISHRA)
JUDGE

¶29

Prasant

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 13-Jan-2024 13:52:56

¶32

Page 3 of 3

State v. Bhimasen Palei

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State v. Bhimasen Palei

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

Subhranshu N.Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha

Orissa State Civil Vs Soni Husen

Mangaraj Behera Vs State of Orissa

State Vs Bhikari Charan Biswa

Maa Sarawati Women Self Help Group Bishnupur Vs State of Odisha

Ouat, Bbsr Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation, Bbsr