Civil Writ Petition No.15871 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15871 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: JULY 5, 2011 Gram Panchayat .....Petitioner VERSUS Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: None for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Jattana, Addl. A.G., Punjab. for respondent No.1. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 filed a suit for declaration under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') claiming that they are owner in possession of the land measuring 38 kanals 1 marla situated in the revenue estate of Village Fatehpur Jhuggian, Tehsil and District Moga. The Collector decreed the suit on 25.10.2002 in favour of respondent Nos.2 to 4. Feeling aggrieved against the same, the petitioner/Gram Panchayat filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, who was exercising the powers of the Commissioner under the Punjab Public Premises Act. The said appeal was filed with delay of 178 days. The Gram Panchayat had also filed an Civil Writ Petition No.15871 of 2008 -2- application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condonation of this delay in filing appeal. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned on 14.10.2003 and the case was listed for arguments on 14.11.2003. Thereafter, the matter remained pending before the Deputy Commissioner, who on 31.08.2004 ultimately took a view that he had no jurisdiction under the Act and the the appeal is not maintainable before him. Faced with this situation, the petitioner withdrew the appeal to file the same before the appropriate Forum. The Deputy Commissioner instead of permitting the withdrawal, dismissed the same. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner again filed an appeal before the Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab. In this process , there was a delay of 697 days in filing the appeal. This appeal was filed along with the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. The Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab, on 23.8.2006 has dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and accordingly, the appeal has not been decided on merits but dismissed on the ground of delay. Thus, the Gram Panchayat has filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the said order with the prayer that the Gram Panchayat is entitled to adjudication on merits. In response to notice of motion, the respondents have filed reply. It is stated that the appeal was rightly dismissed on account of delay as the delay could not be explained. It is also pointed out that the Gram Panchayat had taken almost two years in making approach and hence, it is prayed that the writ petition may be Civil Writ Petition No.15871 of 2008 -3- dismissed. When the case was taken up for hearing in the first round, prayer for adjournment is made on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner as the counsel is unable to appear and argue the matter due to sickness of his father. The prayer was declined on the ground that there was no written request made. None was present on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4. Now, Mr. Sunil Agnihotri, Advocate, has appeared on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner and repeats his prayer for adjournment. No one still is present on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4. Since the issue involved in the present writ petition is limited and to the effect that whether the respondent-Joint Development Commissioner was justified in dismissing the appeal on technical ground of delay, I have decided to take up the writ petition for hearing and am disposing of the same on merits. It is well settled by now that the party is entitled to adjudication on merits and should not normally be ousted on technical ground of delay etc. Once the case was decided against the Gram Panchayat, it had right to file an appeal. The appeal was filed though it chose a wrong forum. The Gram Panchayat had prayed for withdrawing the appeal to file the same before the proper Forum, but the Deputy Commissioner unjustly rejected the prayer for withdrawal of the appeal with liberty to present before proper Forum and dismissed the same. The dismissal of the appeal on this ground of jurisdiction is enough justification to explain the delay on the part of the Gram Panchayat to file an appeal before respondent No.1. Civil Writ Petition No.15871 of 2008 -4- The delay for the purpose of condonation is to be considered on the basis of facts pleaded. If the court comes to the conclusion that there was negligence and callous approach on the part of a party, it may be open for the court to decline the prayer for condoning the delay. Reference here can be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani and others, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1623 and Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition, Kerala Vs. K.V.Ayisumma, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2750. It is stated in the case of Chandra Mani (supra) that Government is a impersonal machinery and decisions are taken at a slow pace on account of which certain amount of latitude is not impermissible. It is also observed that it is a common knowledge that on account of impersonal machinery and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note-making, file-pushing and passing-on-the-buck ethos, delay on the part of the State is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve. Observing that the State represent a collective cause of the community and the decision which are taken by officers/agencies at a slow pace containing a process of pushing the files from table to table and, therefore, certain amount of latitude is due in such cases is a routine. In this background, it is observed that expression “sufficient cause” should therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice-oriented approach rather than technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day's delay. Another relevant observation which was made by the Court is that the Court Civil Writ Petition No.15871 of 2008 -5- should decide the matter on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. The delay in the circumstances of the case and law as referred above, in my view, is sufficiently explained. The Joint Development Commissioner- respondent No.1, thus, was not justified in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner-Gram Panchayat for condoning the delay. The impugned order cannot be sustained and is set aside. The appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat is remanded to respondent No.1 for deciding the same. Let the parties through their counsel appear before the Joint Development Commissioner on 25.8.2011. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. July 05, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) monika JUDGE Civil Writ Petition No.15871 of 2008 -6-