Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 114 (HP)

STATE OF H. P. v. BIJA RAM

2003-05-21

M.R.VERMA

body2003
JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J. - This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been moved by the applicants for condonation of delay in filing against the award dated 1.10.2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Shimla. 2. The delay is sought to be condoned on the grounds that it took time to process the appeal at various levels of the concerned department, therefore, the delay was not intentional or willful but was the result of unavoidable circumstances. 3. I have heard the learned Additional Advocate General for the applicants and have also perused the relevant records. 4. The award sought to be impugned was passed on 1.10.2002. The copy applied for by the applicant was ready for delivery on 10.10.2002 and was taken delivery of on 11.10.2002. After getting the opinion of the District Attorney the matter was routined to the office of the Superintending Engineer through the Land Acquisition Collector on 29.10.2002. The matter, however, was examined at the Divisional level and then referred to the competent authority on 28.11.2002. The delay of about one month in between is attributed to the steps taken to get the copies of the statements of the witnesses. However, this is not a reasonable cause for causing the delay for the simple reasons that the department which has contested the case cannot be expected to be unaware of the statements of the witnesses examined at the trial and the question whether appeal should be preferred as per the opinion of the District Attorney could be taken on the basis of the contents of the award itself. 5. On 8.1.2003 it was conveyed to the Division Office that appeal be kept ready. However, it is not specifically explained as to what happened during the period 28.11.2002 to 8.1.2003 which is a considerable period. Despite the aforesaid directions, the draft appeal does not appear to have been prepared immediately thereafter but was got vetted only on 21.2.2003 and the appeal was filed on 31.3.2003. Thus, the delay during the period 8.1.2003 to 31.3.2003 is also not reasonably explained. The grounds, as disclosed in the application, does not constitute sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the appeal. ; 6. Thus, the delay during the period 8.1.2003 to 31.3.2003 is also not reasonably explained. The grounds, as disclosed in the application, does not constitute sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the appeal. ; 6. It may be pointed out that the law of limitation despite its harshness has to be applied as it is and the Courts have no powers to extend the period of limitation but for sufficient cause show to the satisfaction of the Court the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned. The expression "sufficient cause" no doubt has to be liberally construed but not so liberally as to defeat the purpose of the law of limitation which is based on public policy. It is also true that day to day delay in filing the appeal by the State or its functionaries in their official capacity is not expected to be explained and a reasonable margin must be given to the impersonal attitude in dealing with such matters by the concerned but when the gaps of delay are unreasonably long some reasonable explanation for such delay is expected to be given even by the State or its functionaries. In the event of failure to give such explanation the law must take its own course. 7. It is also true that in State cases the expression sufficient cause may be liberally construed if some substantial public interest or interest of justice is involved in the case. In the case in hand such interest also does not appear to be involved for the reasons that it is admitted case of the applicant vide Para-3 of the Memorandum of appeal that "There are sufficient evidence on the file to show that the value of the acquired land was Rs. 1, 50,000/- per bigha at the time of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act." If so applicants can have no grievance against the award inasmuch as the market value of the acquired land has been assessed by the learned Additional District Judge @ Rs. 7500/- per biswa on the basis of which the market value of one bigha works out precisely to Rs. 1,50,000/- to support which value of the acquired land at the relevant time there is sufficient evidence on the record even according to the applicant. 7500/- per biswa on the basis of which the market value of one bigha works out precisely to Rs. 1,50,000/- to support which value of the acquired land at the relevant time there is sufficient evidence on the record even according to the applicant. It seems that the matter is being pursued thoughtlessly and not in the interest of the State or the public or the justice. 8. In view of the above, there is no merit and substance in this application which deserves to be dismissed without notice to the respondent. 9. As a result, this application is dismissed.