JUDGMENT : M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. The official respondents in W.P(MD)No.2030 of 2005 and in M.P(MD) Nos.1 of 2007 and 1 of 2008 as well as the appellants in W.A(MD)No.449 of 2011 and in M.P(MD) No.3 of 2011 are the petitioners herein. 2. The respondent herein filed the said Writ Petition praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the order of the first respondent therein, dated 09.11.2004 and the consequential proceedings of the third respondent therein in Na.Ka.No.15204/2001/C3, dated 20.12.2004 and to quash the same and directing them to duly assign the petitioner's poramboke land comprised in Survey No.21, admeasuring to an extent of 1 acre in Eliyarpathi Village, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai District. 3. The learned Single Judge of this Court, vide order, dated 12.09.2008, had allowed the Writ Petition and also granted consequential prayer. The official respondents, aggrieved by the same, preferred an appeal in W.A(MD) No.449 of 2011. The Division Bench of this Court vide Judgment, dated 10.01.2013, had dismissed the said Appeal granting time to the appellants/official respondents to comply with the directions within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. The present Rev.Aplc(MD)SR.No.37210 of 2017 is filed to review the said Judgment with a delay of 1676 days. 4. Mr.A.K.Baskara Pandian, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the petitioners in this review application, has invited the attention of this Court to paragraph Nos.3 to 6 in the affidavit filed in support of the petition and would submit that for the purpose of filing the appeal, the papers were circulated to the concerned Department and also in the light of the Full Bench Judgment rendered by this Court in W.PNo.1294 of 2009, a fair decision has been taken and go for the review of the matter for the reason that under the guise of assessment of the land, which is classified as 'water body' is to be necessarily conveyed in favour of the respondent/writ petitioner. Therefore, under the said circumstances, the delay of 1676 days in filing the review application cannot be construed as neither willful nor wanton and prays for condonation of the same. 5. Therefore, under the said circumstances, the delay of 1676 days in filing the review application cannot be construed as neither willful nor wanton and prays for condonation of the same. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner would submit that the Government in G.O.Rt.No.293, Revenue (LD- 1(2)) Department, dated 26.11.2013 has also constituted a committee to fix the land value in respect of Survey No.21 for the purpose of granting assignment, in compliance of the above cited Judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court and the Collector of the Madurai District has also forwarded necessary proposal, dated 03.09.2014 to the Additional Chief Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai - 5, for fixing the land value at Rs.34,88,000/- and also for re-classification of the land from Oorani/water body, the Government assessed the land as waste and thereafter only, the appellants in the Writ Appeal/official respondents in the Writ Petition took a decision to file the review application and in the absence of any plausible and reasonable explanation as to the long delay, it cannot be condoned. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has also filed an affidavit on behalf of the respondent, dated 12.03.2018 and would submit that the said land is surrounded by patta lands of the respondent Foundation and they had taken water harvesting and percolation system to enable and evolve recharging of water table beneath and also undertaken that any construction or superstructure of any sort will not be put up at any point of time in the event of the assessment of the said land. 7. The said affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent is also taken on record. 8. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials placed before it. 9. The delay is huge and enormous and therefore, the question arises for consideration in this petition is whether the petitioners/official respondents in the Writ Petition or the appellants in the Writ Appeal had properly explained the delay or not?. 10. 8. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials placed before it. 9. The delay is huge and enormous and therefore, the question arises for consideration in this petition is whether the petitioners/official respondents in the Writ Petition or the appellants in the Writ Appeal had properly explained the delay or not?. 10. In the considered opinion of this Court, the delay in filing the appeal mainly attributed to the administrative delay and after the Judgment in W.A(MD)No.449 of 2011, the Revenue Department has also passed a Government Order, dated 26.11.2013 for constituting a committee to fix up the value of the land and it was followed by the proposal of the Collector of the Madurai District, dated 03.09.2014 addressed to the Additional Chief Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai - 5, in fixing the land value and thereafter only, a decision has been taken to file the review application. 11. In 2013 (11) SCALE 418 [Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Others], similar issue arose for consideration and here again the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has relied on the earlier decisions and culled out lot of principles and guidelines and it is relevant to extract paragraph Nos.15 and 16:- “15. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are: (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. (ii) The terms “sufficient cause” should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-situation. (iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. (vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice. (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. (ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. (x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation. (xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation. (xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinised and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception. (xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude. 16. To the aforesaid principles we may add some more guidelines taking note of the present day scenario. (xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude. 16. To the aforesaid principles we may add some more guidelines taking note of the present day scenario. They are: (a) An application for condonation of delay should be drafted with careful concern and not in a haphazard manner harbouring the notion that the courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system. (b) An application for condonation of delay should not be dealt with in a routine manner on the base of individual philosophy which is basically subjective. (c) Though no precise formula can be laid down regard being had to the concept of judicial discretion, yet a conscious effort for achieving consistency and collegiality of the adjudicatory system should be made as that is the ultimate institutional motto. (d) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non-serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a nonchalant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters”. 12. In the considered opinion of this Court, the reasons adduced for such a huge delay in filing the review application are not sufficient and it is only an administrative delay and the decision has been taken to file the review application only after the constitution of the committee to fix up the value of the land and it was followed by the proposal of the Collector of the Madurai District for fixation of the land value. 13. In the considered opinion of this Court, in the absence of any proper and sufficient or tenable explanation, such a huge delay cannot be condoned. Therefore, this petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Rev.Aplc(MD)SR.No.37210 of 2017 is rejected. It is made clear that in the light of the affidavit of the respondent, dated 12.03.2018, the respondent, after assignment, payment of cost and getting possession, shall not put up construction or superstructure on the said land and shall stand by the undertaking given in the said affidavit.