CWP No. 22485 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. *** CWP No. 22485 of 2010 Date of decision: 04.10.2011 *** Amolak Singh Petitioner. Versus Director, Rural Development and Panchayat and others. Respondents. *** CWP No. 22918 of 2010 Date of decision: 4.10.2011. *** Tarsem Singh Petitioner Versus Director, Rural Development and Panchayat and others. Respondents. *** CWP No. 22944 of 2010 Date of decision: 4.10.2011. *** Mangal Singh Petitioner Versus Director, Rural Development and Panchayat and others. Respondents. *** CWP No. 22948 of 2010 Date of decision: 4.10.2011. *** CWP No. 22485 of 2010 2 Gurnam Singh Petitioner Versus Director, Rural Development and Panchayat and others. Respondents. *** CWP No. 22949 of 2010 Date of decision: 4.10.2011. *** Jaspal Singh Petitioner Versus Director, Rural Development and Panchayat and others. Respondents. *** CWP No. 22950 of 2010 Date of decision: 4.10.2011. *** Jaspal Singh Petitioner Versus Director, Rural Development and Panchayat and others. Respondents. *** CWP No. 22952 of 2010 Date of decision: 4.10.2011. *** Mukhwant Singh Petitioner Versus Director, Rural Development and Panchayat and others. Respondents. CWP No. 22485 of 2010 3 *** CWP No. 22953 of 2010 Date of decision: 4.10.2011. *** Swaran Singh Petitioner Versus Director, Rural Development and Panchayat and others. Respondents. *** CWP No. 22961 of 2010 Date of decision: 4.10.2011. *** Dayal Singh Petitioner Versus Director, Rural Development and Panchayat and others. Respondents. *** CWP No. 22964 of 2010 Date of decision: 4.10.2011. *** Jaspal Singh Petitioner Versus Director, Rural Development and Panchayat and others. Respondents. *** CWP No. 22967 of 2010 Date of decision: 4.10.2011. *** Gurnam Singh Petitioner Versus Director, Rural Development and Panchayat and others. CWP No. 22485 of 2010 4 Respondents. *** CWP No. 22968 of 2010 Date of decision: 4.10.2011. *** Santa Singh Petitioner Versus Director, Rural Development and Panchayat and others. Respondents. *** CWP No. 22969 of 2010 Date of decision: 4.10.2011. *** Pal Singh Petitioner Versus Director, Rural Development and Panchayat and others. Respondents. *** CWP No. 22973 of 2010 Date of decision: 4.10.2011. *** Swaran Singh Petitioner Versus Director, Rural Development and Panchayat and others. Respondents. *** CWP No. 22974 of 2010 Date of decision: 4.10.2011. *** Dayal Singh Petitioner Versus CWP No. 22485 of 2010 5 Director, Rural Development and Panchayat and others. Respondents. *** CWP No. 22975 of 2010 Date of decision: 4.10.2011. *** Balkar Singh Petitioner Versus Director, Rural Development and Panchayat and others. Respondents. *** CWP No. 22992 of 2010 Date of decision: 4.10.2011. *** Hardial Singh Petitioner Versus Director, Rural Development and Panchayat and others. Respondents. *** CWP No. 874 of 2011 Date of decision: 4.10.2011. *** Harjinder Singh Petitioner Versus Director, Rural Development and Panchayat and others. Respondents. *** CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH *** Present: Ms. Jatinderjit Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner, in all CWP No. 22485 of 2010 6 the petitions. Shri Manohar Lall, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondents No. 1 and 2 in all the petitions. None for respondent No.3. *** PARAMJEET SINGH, J This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 22485, 22918, 22944, 22948, 22949, 22950, 22952, 22953, 22961, 22964, 22967, 22968, 22969, 22973, 22974, 22975, 22992 of 2010 and 874 of 2011 as common question of law and facts are involved in all these writ petitions. However, the facts for the disposal of these writ petitions have been taken from CWP No. 22485 of 2010. Petitioner Amolak Singh has filed the present writ petition for quashing the order dated 3.11.2010 (Annexure P-4) passed by Commissioner-respondent No.1 whereby he had condoned the delay of 3224 days in filing the appeal. The Gram Panchayat filed an appeal against the order dated 31.10.2001 passed by the Collector whereby suit of the petitioners and others regarding ownership of the disputed land was allowed. The appeal filed against that order was accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 3224 days. The delay was condoned by the Commissioner, after taking into consideration the grounds taken therein which were sufficient to condone the delay in filing of the appeal. After condoning the delay, the appeal had been admitted for regular hearing and decision on merits. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In this case, the statutory authority was satisfied with the reasons for the delay mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, Annexure P-2, and condoned the same after exercising the discretion CWP No. 22485 of 2010 7 vested in it in accordance with law. So the present petition is not a fit case for judicial review by this Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless it is shown that the impugned order is perverse or is passed in violation o the principles of Natural Justice. A perusal of the application for condonation of delay shows that reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the authority was that at the relevant time Harmanjit Kaur was the sarpanch who was related to Kashmir Singh and others. The said order was not challenged by her successor Sarpanch in connivance with the petitioner. Again a new Panchayat came into existence and one Jatinderbir Singh became the Sarpanch and he too was related to the petitioner and therefore no appeal was filed and the order was not challenged before the concerned authority. On 31.10.2001when new Panchayat came into existence and again Jatinderbir Singh became the Sarpanch and did not file any appeal. Thereafter, when the authorities became aware of this fact, the then Development and Panchayat Officer vide its order dated 18.5.2010 appointed the Block Development and Panchayat Officer Harsha China as Parbandhak (Administrator) and thereafter the present appeal was filed with an application for condonation of delay of 3224 days. As such the delay of 3224 days occurred because of the inaction on the part of the Sarpanch of the previous panchayats and the present Sarpanch as well. It is common knowledge that when the election of Gram Panchayats are held, one faction who supports the Sarpanch in the election, no action is taken against them although they may be in illegal possession of the property of the Gram Panchayat. In the present case, one Harmanjit Kaur and then Jatinderbir Singh became the Sarpanch of the Village who were related to the petitioners and others especially related to Kashmir Singh who is one of CWP No. 22485 of 2010 8 the petitioners in the other petitions. As such no action was taken. The present appeal was filed at the instance of District Development and Panchayat Officer who had appointed District Block and Development Officer (Administrator) of the Gram Panchayat to file the present appeal in order to save the property belonging to the Gram Panchayat. As such the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate. Even otherwise, the delay of 3224 days was beyond the control of the government officials. On the facts and circumstances explained in the application for condonation of delay, the appellate authority rightly exercised its jurisdiction by condoning the delay. Otherwise also no perversity has been pointed out in the impugned order and that the order passed by the authority suffers from any vice of principle of natural justice. In fact in the present case all the parties have been given opportunity to file reply and have been heard with regard to the condonation of delay. Otherwise also no prejudice is caused to the petitioners as the matter is to be decided on merits. It is to be kept in mind that where the public property is involved some delay or lapse on the part of the elected representatives is likely to be committed. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. It is enshrined in the maxim “interest republicae ut sit finis litium”. It is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislative fixed period of time. The Supreme Court while dealing with various authorities on the subject, has culled out principles, which is reproduced as under:- “The words ''sufficient'' cause for not making the application within the period of limitation'' should be understood and applied in a reasonable pragmatic practical and liberal manner, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, and the type of case. The words ''sufficient cause'' in Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance CWP No. 22485 of 2010 9 substantial justice, when the delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, want of bona fides, deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the appellant''. We are further fortified from the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Trade Tax, UP Vs. M/S U.P. Paper Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 2001(2) RCR (Civil) 418. In this case there was a delay of 208 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal having considered the reasons given in the application seeking condonation of delay found sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the appeal. That order of the Tribunal was questioned before the High Court by filing the writ petition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that when a statutory authority, having been satisfied with the reasons for the delay, exercised discretion vested in him under law by condoning the delay. It was further observed that it was not a fit case for judicial review by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless of course the order impugned is a perverse order or is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. In the present case the action on the part of the Government authorities i.e Block Development and Panchayat Officer does not smack of mala fides and there are sufficient reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay. Thus, we are in complete agreement with the finding recorded by the competent authority. As such, the present writ petitions are devoid of any merit and the same are hereby dismissed. (PARAMJEET SINGH ) JUDGE October 04, 2011. malik (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE