This First Appeal No. 157 of 2006 (Defective) preferred by State of U.P. against the judgment and award dated 12.12.2003 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Bijnor in Land Acquisition Reference No. 219 of 1993 between Abdul Gaffoor and others Vs. State of U.P. and another.
This appeal is preferred with delay condonation application to condone the delay in filing the appeal as there was delay of 2 years and 85 days.
Notices were issued to the respondents and they filed counter affidavit to this delay condonation application and the rejoinder affidavit also filed by the State.
Heard learned counsels for the parties.
The ground for condoning the delay as shown in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application and it is stated that the certified copy of the judgment was received on 13.1.2004 and District Government Counsel (Civil), Bijnor vide his letter dated 24.1.2004 sent his opinion to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Joint Organization, Bijnor and the copy of the said letter was also forwarded to the District Magistrate, Bijnor as well as Executive Engineer Irrigation Khand, Bijnor for filing appeal.
The aforesaid opinion received in the office of Special Land Acquisition Officer on 17.1.2004. On 22.1.2004 the Special Land Acquisition Officer sent a letter to the Executive Engineer Irrigation Khand, Bijnor for his recommendation for filing of appeal. On 31.1.2004 the Executive, Irrigation Khand, Bijnor forwarded the copy of the letter to the Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Khand, Bijnor for taking necessary action. On 13.2.2004 the Assistant Engineer-IV Irrigation Division, Bijnor sent a letter to the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Bijnor for obtaining necessary permission for filing of appeal in the High Court. On 25.2.2004 the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Bijnor sent a letter to the Secretary State of U.P. Irrigation Anughag-3, Lucknow for according sanction for filing appeal before the High Court.
On 3.7.2004 the Executive Engineer Irrigation Division, Bijnor sent a reminder to the Secretary State of U.P. Irrigation Anubhag-3, Lucknow then again a reminder sent on 20.4.2004 and on 10.8.2004 Anu Sachiv, U.P. Sashan, Lucknow sent a letter to the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division to obtain certain documents.
On 19.8.2004 the Executive Engineer sent the required documents and material. On 23.10.2004 the Executive Engineer again sent a reminder to the State Government for granting permission, again on 29.10.2004 Anu Sachiv sent a letter to the Executive Engineer for sending certain documents.
Again on 5.11.2004 the Superintending Engineer, Haridwar sent a letter to the Executive Engineer for making available the copy of the documents required by the State Government in pursuance of the letter of the Superintending Engineer, the Assistant Engineer Irrigation Division sent a letter to the Special Land Acquisition Officer for making available copy of the check list, opinion of the acquiring body, copy of the award and reasons for the delay then on 6.12.2004 the Assistant Engineer Irrigation sent a reminder to the Special Land Acquisition Officer for sending required documents.
Again a reminder was issued on 13.12.2004 to the Special Land Acquisition Officer for sending required documents then again on 21.12.2004 a letter was sent to the Special Land Acquisition Officer for sending required documents and 3.1.2005 a letter was sent to the Special Land Acquisition Officer for sending required documents.
On 17.1.2005 the Special Land Acquisition Officer sent the required documents then the Assistant Engineer informed to the Executive Engineer that the document has been received. On 31.01.2005 the said documents were sent to the Anu Sachiv, U.P. Sashan Anubhag-3, Lucknow, on 4.4.2005 Up-Sachiv U.P. Sashan again sent a letter for requiring some more documents.
The Assistant Engineer sent the required document to the Executive Engineer office and Executive Engineer on 7.5.2005 sent required document to the Up Sachiv U.P. State. When sanction was not received from the State Government. On 30.5.2005 again sent a reminder to the Special Secretary, U.P. Sashan Irrigation for grant of permission then a reminder sent on 18.7.2005 to the State Govt. and again a reminder and then on 9.9.2005 sent a reminder to the State Govt. for sending the permission.
When no reply was received from the State Govt., the Superintending Engineer sent a letter on 12.9.2005 for grant of permission to file the appeal then a reminder was sent on 6.10.2005 and 21.10.2005 to the State Govt. for grant of permission. Then a letter was sent to the Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Division by the Executive Engineer to go to the State Govt. Lucknow personally to obtain the permission.
That on 19.9.2005 permission was granted for filing the appeal by the State Govt. which was received through letter dated 7.4.2006 in the office of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division. Then again on 12.4.2006 the Assistant Engineer sent a letter to the Executive Engineer informing him grant of permission and necessary expenses including court fees may be arranged so that the appeal may be filed in the High Court.
Then a letter was again sent to the Executive Engineer for grant of financial sanction for filing the appeal in the High Court then a reminder was again sent on 10.5.2006 for granting of financial sanction.
That on 17.6.2006 the permission for financial sanction was granted and the amount of Rs. 7270/- was released and ultimately the appeal filed in the High Court on 10.7.2006.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is bonafide and has been explained thus, the delay in filing the appeal be condoned.
The respondents appeared through their counsel and filed counter affidavit and denied all the contentions raised in the affidavit filed by the appellant and it is submitted that stands taken by the appellant for condoning the delay in filing the appeal is not satisfactory, officials were negligent and there were latches on their part and the appellant have not given any explanation for the time spent between 13.1.2004 to 26.5.2006.
Lastly, it is submitted that there is delay of more than 2 years and 85 days and no sufficient ground is given to condone the delay. The application deserves to be dismissed.
The appellant filed rejoinder affidavit reiterating averments mentioned in the affidavit earlier.
I am unable to accept the explanation of delay, the appellant has to explain day to day delay. There is no explanation why the documents were not asked at one go. There was also no explanation why sanction was not granted in time and why Executive Engineer / Assistant Engineer compelled to send the Government for reminder. There is also no explanation when the permission was granted on 19.9.2005 why the permission was sent to the Executive Engineer on 7.4.2006 i.e. means after lapse of 7 months there is no explanation of such delay.
Further the appellant has not explained why there was delay in granting the financial sanction to file the appeal. In office of the Chief Post Master General Vs. Living Media J.T. 2012(2) S.C. 483 Supreme Court refused to condone the inordinate delay of 427 days in filing SLP paras 12 and 13 of the said judgment are quoted below:-
"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 6 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.
13) 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 redtape 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."
So far the merit of the appeal is concerned, the enhanced amount as awarded by the impugned judgment must have been realised by the claimant respondent long before. Supreme Court in Stanes Higher Secondary School Vs. Special Tehsildar (L.A.) A.I.R. 2010 SC 1323 has taken into consideration the "Laws Delay" which may not be attributable to anyone in the land acquisition matters. In the instant case also the matter has become 10 years old since the date on which amount was enhanced by the reference court.
Accordingly, the appellant has failed to explain the delay of 2 years and 85 days and the cause shown by them is not sufficient. Hence the delay condonation application is rejected and the appeal is also dismissed as barred by time.
Order Date :- 15.10.2012 Dhirendra