IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 1777 of 2010 ( O&M ) DATE OF DECISION : 13.01.2011 Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation .... APPELLANT Versus M/s Sahil Holdings Private Limited and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL Present: Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate, for the appellant. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The appellant has filed this Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment dated 16.4.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the notifications dated 17.9.2004 and 27.10.2004, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), respectively, for acquiring lands of certain persons, including respondent No.1, situated in various villages of District Gurgaon, for a public purpose, namely for setting up of Choudhary Devi Lal Industrial Model Township Phase V, Manesar, by invoking the urgency provisions and dispensing with the requirement of Section 5-A of the Act, have been quashed. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of LPA No. 1777 of 2010 -2- the case, has quashed the aforesaid notifications, after coming to the conclusion that the State Government has failed to exercise its power to abide by the mandate of law, and proceeded to invoke Section 17 (4) of the Act arbitrarily, without application of mind. However, while quashing the aforesaid notifications, the State Government has been given the liberty to initiate a fresh process of acquisition after complying with the provisions of the Act. The said order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 16.4.2009, whereas the instant appeal has been filed on 9.4.2010, i.e. after a considerable delay of about eleven months (327 days), along with an application (CM No. 5360 of 2010) for condonation of delay, which reads as under :- “1. That the above Letters Patent Appeal is being filed in this Hon'ble Court and the appellant is sanguine of its success. 2. That there is a delay of 327 days in filing the present appeal. The delay has been caused due to the fact that the counsel, who appeared on behalf of the Corporation before the Learned Single Judge did not supply certified copy of the orders. The officials of the corporation repeatedly requested the counsel to supply certified copy of the orders, so that the same can be examined by the competent authority and LPA, if so desired can be filed. However, all efforts made by the officials of the Corporation failed and the concerned counsel, Shri A.K. Pathania, submitted an affidavit that his Clerk had applied for the certified copy of the orders but due to abandonment of job by his Clerk, the certified copy could not be obtained. LPA No. 1777 of 2010 -3- 3. That in the above circumstances, the Corporation engaged another counsel for applying certified copy of the orders, who applied and obtained the same. Thereafter, the appeal is being filed. In this process, a delay of 327 days has caused. 4. That the delay in filing the present appeal is totally unintentional and due to bona fide reasons as mentioned above. The delay in filing the present appeal deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the present application may kindly be allowed and the delay of 327 days in filing the present appeal may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice.” The application is supported by the affidavit of the STP, HSIIDC, Panchkula. On 17.4.2010, the Registry raised certain objections and the appeal was returned. After removing the objections, the appeal was re-filed on 17.12.2010 with an application (CM No. 5361 of 2010) for condonation of delay of 203 days in re-filing the appeal, which reads as under :- “1. That the above mentioned Letters Patent Appeal is being filed in this Hon'ble Court and the appellant is sanguine of its success. 2. That there is a delay of 203 days in re-filing the present appeal. The delay has been caused due to the fact that when the appeal was filed in this Hon'ble Court on .04.2010, the Registry of the Hon'ble High Court raised certain objections. The objections were removed and the appeal was re-filed, however, in this process delay in re-filing the appeal has LPA No. 1777 of 2010 -4- occurred. 3. That the delay in re-filing the present appeal is totally unintentional and due to bona fide reasons as mentioned above. The delay in re-filing the present appeal deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the present application may kindly be allowed and the delay of 203 days in re-filing the present appeal may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice.” After hearing learned counsel for the appellant on the aforesaid applications, we are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant has failed to make out a case for condoning the delay in filing and re-filing the appeal. As per the averments made in the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, in spite of the repeated requests by the officials of the appellant Corporation, the counsel, who appeared on behalf of the appellant Corporation before the learned Single Judge, did not supply the certified copy of the order, and he submitted an affidavit that since his Clerk, who had applied for the certified copy of the order, has abandoned the job, therefore, the certified copy of the order could not be obtained. It has been further stated in the application that thereafter, the appellant Corporation engaged another counsel, who applied and obtained the certified copy of the order. It has not been stated that when the earlier counsel of the appellant gave affidavit to the aforesaid effect and when another counsel was engaged to get the certified copy of the order. It has not LPA No. 1777 of 2010 -5- been explained at all as to why such a long time was taken to apply and obtain the certified copy of the order. In para 4 of the application, it has been stated that the delay in filing the appeal is totally unintentional and due to bona fide reasons. So far as the delay in re-filing the appeal is concerned, in the application (CM No. 5361 of 2010), the delay of 203 days (more than six months) in re-filing the appeal has not been explained at all. It has been stated that in the process of removing the objections, raised by the Registry, the delay in re-filing the appeal has occurred. However, it has not been explained at all as to how such a long time has been consumed by the appellant Corporation, only for removing the formal objections, raised by the Registry. Thus, the appellant Corporation is not vigilant and has been totally negligent in pursuing the remedy of appeal. Now, the question arising for consideration is as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant has sufficiently explained the delay in filing and re-filing the appeal. In Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao, (2002) 3 SCC 195, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that normally the expression “sufficient cause” used in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 should be given liberal interpretation, so that the substantial justice can be done between the parties, but only so long as negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides cannot be imputed to the party concerned. In a particular case whether explanation furnished would constitute “sufficient cause” or not will depend on the facts and LPA No. 1777 of 2010 -6- circumstances of that case. There cannot be a straightjacket formula for accepting or rejecting explanation furnished by a party seeking condonation of delay. The other connected appeals against the same order, which has been impugned in this appeal, which were filed by the State of Haryana after the long delay of about one year, have also been dismissed by this Court being barred by limitation. In the instant case, in our opinion, the appellant is totally negligent and in-active in pursuing its remedy of appeal. On the one hand, the appellant wants to acquire the land of farmers/land owners for a public purpose, by invoking the urgency provisions contained in Section 17 of the Act and by dispensing with the mandatory requirement of filing objections under Section 5-A of the Act, which could have been filed within thirty days of the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. On the other hand, the appellant has taken about one year in filing the appeal against the order, whereby the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were quashed on the ground that the State Government was not justified in invoking the urgency provisions and dispensing with the mandatory requirement of filing objections under Section 5-A of the Act, while acquiring the land. Furthermore, by the impugned order, the appellant was permitted to again initiate the acquisition proceedings by following the procedure, as prescribed under the Act. If the matter was so urgent, then within the period, which has been taken by the appellant to file appeal against the impugned order, fresh acquisition proceedings could have been completed by it. It has also been observed in Ram Nath Sao's case (supra) LPA No. 1777 of 2010 -7- that while considering the matter of condonation of delay, the courts have to strike a balance between resultant effect of the order it is going to pass upon the parties either way. In the present case, after quashing the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, the State Government was not debarred from acquiring the land by following procedure. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that by the impugned order, enormous loss and irreparable injury has been caused to the appellant. On the other hand, by the negligent default or in-action on the part of the appellant, the valuable right of respondents No.1 and 2, which has accrued due to non-filing of appeal within the time, has been defeated. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant argued that since the appellant is instrumentality of the State, therefore, this Court should take a liberal view in condoning the delay. It is true, as has been held by the Apex Court in Pundlik Jalam Patil (deceased) by LRs v. Exe. Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project & Anr., 2008 (4) RCR (Civil) 885, that when the State and its instrumentalities are seeking condonation of delay, they may be entitled to certain amount of latitude but the law of limitation is same for citizen and for Government authorities. Limitation Act does not provide for a different period to the Government or its instrumentality in filing appeals or applications as such. It would be a different matter where the Government makes out a case where public interest was shown to have suffered owing to acts of fraud or collusion on the parts of its officers or agents and where the officers were clearly at cross LPA No. 1777 of 2010 -8- purposes with it. In a given case if any such facts are pleaded or proved they cannot be excluded from consideration and those factors may go into the judicial verdict. In the present case, no such facts have been pleaded by the appellant. Rather, as we have discussed earlier, in the application itself, no explanation at all has been given for filing the appeal after such a long delay. It is for the appellant to establish the sufficient cause that because of some event or circumstance arising before limitation expired, it was not possible for it to file the appeal within time. In view of above, we are of the opinion that the appellant has failed to show cause any sufficient reason for condoning the inordinate delay in filing as well as re-filing the instant appeal. Therefore, the applications (CMs No. 5360 and 5361 of 2010) for condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the appeal are dismissed. Resultantly, the instant appeal is also dismissed, being barred by limitation. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE January 13, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) ndj JUDGE