State appealed against enhancement of land acquisition compensation; application to condone 243 days' delay filed two years after presenting the appeal without sufficient cause. Following Supreme Court precedent on governmental delay, both the condonation application and the appeal were dismissed on grounds of delay and laches.
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.91 of 2008
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Keonjhar
Appellant
Mr. A. Behera, ASC
-versus-
Sankhali Sahu & ors.
Respondents
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
Order No. 11.
ORDER 21.02.2024 LAA No.91 of 2008 & Misc Case No.219 of 2010 This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Pursuant to order dated 16.11.2023, though notices were issued to the Respondents, as per the Office note, A.D. received from Respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(e) so also Respondent Nos.2 & 3 after valid service. However, the said Respondents go unrepresented. 3. This I.A. has been filed for condonation of delay of 243 days as pointed out by the stamp reporter. Though the memorandum of appeal was presented on 31.07.2008, the application for condonation of delay was filed on 19.08.2010 i.e. almost after two years from the presentation of Memorandum of Appeal. That apart, the reason assigned in the application for condonation of delay is neither sufficient nor
Page 1 of 4
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,
Page 2 of 4
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 3 of 4
reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 849, this Appeal deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
Banita
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI Designation: SR. STENOGRAPHER Reason: AUTHENTICATION Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 22-Feb-2024 19:02:21
Page 4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a delay of 243 days in filing the appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act should be condoned.
Whether the State's explanation for the delay and its inaction for two years justified condonation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vrs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr.Relied on¶5
(2012) 3 SCC 563 · Who else cites this
State of Odisha Vrs. Surama Manjari DasRelied on¶6
W.P.(C) No.15763 of 2021 dismissed on 16.07.2021
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vrs. BherulalReferred¶6
2020 SCC Online SC 849 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Keonjhar
Sankhali Sahu
Sanjay Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
