# State of U.P v. Sri Ram

- **Citation:** (2012) 2 ILRA 517
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-05-01
- **Bench:** Sibghat Ullah Khan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-v-sri-ram-42294
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Limitation Act-Section-5-Delay of 465
days in filing-land acquisition appealaffidavit filed in support of applicationnot explaining the cause of delay but
utter negligence on part of officialscausing not only financial loss but also
loss
of
credibility
to
Govt.-deserve
strong
departmental
action-Appeal
dismissed on ground of laches-so far
recovery
of
excess
amount
of
compensation-can
not
be
recorded
already withdrawn by claimant long -
long ago.

Held: Para 8

Moreover, 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.
SpecialTehsildar (L.A). A.I.R. 2010 SC
1323 has held that if the amount as
awarded by the reference court has
been withdrawn by the landowner then
even if High Court reduces the said
amount, it would be quite unjust to
direct return of the said amount (para
12). In this regard reference may also
be made to Fida Husain Vs. M.D.A. A.I.R.
2011 S.C. 3001 (para 28)
Case law discussed:
J.T. 2012 (2) S.C. 483; A.I.R. 2011 S.C. 3001
(para 28)

## Text

2 All] State of U.P. V. Sri Ram
517
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.05.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SIBGHAT ULLAH KHAN, J.

First Appeal Defective No. - 116 of 1995

State of U.P.

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Sri Ram

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri C.K. Rai
S.C.

Counsel for the Respondents:
.............................................

Limitation Act-Section-5-Delay of 465
days in filing-land acquisition appealaffidavit filed in support of applicationnot explaining the cause of delay but
utter negligence on part of officialscausing not only financial loss but also
loss
of
credibility
to
Govt.-deserve
strong
departmental
action-Appeal
dismissed on ground of laches-so far
recovery
of
excess
amount
of
compensation-can
not
be
recorded
already withdrawn by claimant long -
long ago.

Held: Para 8

Moreover, 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.
SpecialTehsildar (L.A). A.I.R. 2010 SC
1323 has held that if the amount as
awarded by the reference court has
been withdrawn by the landowner then
even if High Court reduces the said
amount, it would be quite unjust to
direct return of the said amount (para
12). In this regard reference may also
be made to Fida Husain Vs. M.D.A. A.I.R.
2011 S.C. 3001 (para 28)
Case law discussed:
J.T. 2012 (2) S.C. 483; A.I.R. 2011 S.C. 3001
(para 28)

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.)

Heard learned standing counsel for
the applicant appellant.

2. This first appeal is directed against
award dated 25.5.1993 given by 5th
A.D.J., Ghaziabad, in L.A. Reference
no.85 of 1982. The appeal has been filed
on 1.3.1995 with the delay of 465 days
(458+7). The reason of delay given in the
accompanying affidavit of Satyaveer Singh
Arya A.D.M. (L.A.) Irrigation, Ghaziabad
is as follows:

3. The D.G.C. Applied for certified
copy of the award dated 25.5.1993 on
10.9.1993 (para 2). This delay of three and
half month has not been explained.

4. Acquiring body gave its consent
on 29.10.1993, letter addressed to the State
Government for seeking permission to file
appeal
was
drafted/prepared
on
10.11.1993, however, Collector Ghaziabad
put his signatures on the said letter on
10.12.1993 (para 4). This delay of one
month is wholly unexplained.

5.

State
Government
granted
permission on 18.2.1994 but collector
Ghaziabad did not get that. On 11.5.1994
an official was sent to the office of C.S.C.
High Court Allahabad but he was told that
without permission appeal could not be
filed. It has not been explained that why
without permission official was sent to the
High Court for filing appeal. Thereafter, it
is mentioned that on 26.6.1994 reminder
was
sent
to
the
Government
demanding/requiring
the
G.O.
dated
518 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
18.2.1994 granting the permission but no
response
was
given
by
the
State
Government. Thereafter, two reminders
were sent in July and August 1994 and
ultimately on 27.8.1994 special messanger
was sent and thereupon permission dated
18.2.1994 was made available to him on
1.9.1994 (para 8). This delay of six and a
half months has been caused due to pure
negligence. Thereafter in para 9 it is
mentioned that thereafter acquiring body
was requested to make available necessary
expenses, reminder was also sent and
ultimately on 27.9.1994 acquiring body
sent the necessary expenses which were
received on 3.12.1994 (para 9). It is
startling to note that expenses remitted on
27.9.1994 reached the Collector after more
than two months i.e. on 3.12.1994.
Moreover if expenses had not been sent by
the acquiring body how official was sent to
file appeal in May 1994 as stated in para 7.
Thereafter, in para 10 it is mentioned that
from 5.12.1994 till 25.1.1994 Government
employee were on strike.

6. The averments made in the
accompanying affidavit are not explanation
of delay but details of utter negligence on
the
part
of
officers/officials.
Such
officials/officers who are responsible for
such utter negligence causing not only
financial loss but also loss of credibility to
the State Government deserve to be
suspended and departmental proceedings
for stern action deserve to be taken against
them.

7. 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 S.L.P. 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.
2 All] Amit Garg and another V. Smt. Tabassum and others
519
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."

8. Moreover, 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.
SpecialTehsildar (L.A). A.I.R. 2010 SC
1323 has held that if the amount as
awarded by the reference court has been
withdrawn by the landowner then even if
High Court reduces the said amount, it
would be quite unjust to direct return of the
said amount (para 12). In this regard
reference may also be made to Fida
Husain Vs. M.D.A. A.I.R. 2011 S.C.
3001 (para 28)

9. In State of Punjab Vs. Harchal
Singh AIR 2006 SC 2122 the Court 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 almost 20
years old since the date on which amount
was enhanced by the reference court.

10. Accordingly, I do not find any
merit, hence delay condonation application
is dismissed.

11. Office is directed to supply a
copy of this order free of cost to Sri Shrish
Chandra, learned standing counsel for
sending the same immediately to Secretary
and
Principal
Secretary
Irrigation
Department. In some future case it may be
enquired that what action was taken
pursuant to this order.
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.05.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Revision No. - 182 of 2012

Amit Garg and another

 ...Plaintiffs-Revisionist
Versus
Smt. Tabassum and others

 ...Defendant-Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Ajit Kumar
Sri Manu Saxena

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Sri Ajay K. Singh
Sri Ashish Kr. Singh
Sri Krishna Shukla
S.C.

C.P.C.-Section 115-Civil revision-against
application-proposed amendment-would
not change nature of suit or claim barred
by limitation-can not be rejected on
ground of prolong delay-amendment of
plaint can be made and allowed at any
stage.

Held: Para 14

A careful reading of entire amendment,
which
the
plaintiffs/revisionists
has
sought also does not show that it would
change
the
nature
of
the
suit
or
something which can be said to be
barred by limitation ex facie. The well