State of Kerala represented by the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram and The Secretary, TRIDA, Thiruvananthapuram v. Sri Sajeev S/O Somanathan

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **MONDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 18TH SRAVANA, 1943 LA.APP. NO. 234 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN LAR 624/2009 OF THE I** # **ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN L.A.R:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **2 THE SECRETARY, TRIDA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **SMT. K G SAROJINI, GP** ## **RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT IN L.A.R:** **SRI. SAJEEV S/O. SOMANATHAN, SOMA NIVAS, T.C.42/884, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN CODE – 695 008.** **BY ADVS. SRI. R. LAKSHMI NARAYAN SMT. R. RANJANIE** **THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** C.M Appln No.1 of 2020 in LA.APP. No. 234 Of 2020 2 ## **C.S.DIAS,J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.M Appln No.1 of 2020 in LA.App No.234 of 2020 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9[th] day of August, 2021 ## **JUDGMENT** This is an application filed to condone the delay of 3131 days (8.5 years) in filing the appeal. 2. The petitioners have stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application that although the judgment was passed on 22.12.2011, due to an inadvertent omission on the part of the Government Pleader, the copy of the decree was only applied on 12.06.2019. The certified copy of the decree was ready on 24.07.2019. On receipt of the judgment and decree, the file was sent to C.M Appln No.1 of 2020 in LA.APP. No. 234 Of 2020 3 the concerned District Collector, who after examining the scope in filing the appeal, forwarded the records to the Additional Advocate General to prepare and file the appeal. In the above process, a delay of 3131 days has occurred in filing the appeal. There is no willful laches on the part of the petitioners in not filing the appeal within the prescribed time period. 3. The application is vehemently opposed by the 1[st] respondent who has filed detailed counter affidavit, inter alia, contending that the explanation put forth by the petitioners is far from truth. The amount involved in the appeal is meagre. There is willful laches and negligence on the part of the petitioners in filing the appeal after a period of 8.5 years, which is inordinate and inexcusable. Therefore, the application may be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel C.M Appln No.1 of 2020 in LA.APP. No. 234 Of 2020 4 appearing for the 1[st ] respondent. 5. The sole question that arises for consideration in the application is whether the petitioners have stated sufficient reasons to condone the delay of 3131 days in filing the appeal. 6. In a recent decision, a three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **University of Delhi v. Union of India and others** [2019 KHC 7261] has held thus: ## “20.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Even in such case the condonation of long delay should not be automatic since the accrued right or the adverse consequence to the opposite party is also to be kept in perspective. **In that background while considering condonation of delay, the routine explanation would not be enough but it should be in the nature of indicating “sufficient cause” to justify the delay which will depend on the backdrop of each case and will have to be weighed carefully by the Courts based on the fact situation.** xxxxxxxxxx”. ## 7. In **Pandlik Talam Patil vs Talgaou Medium** C.M Appln No.1 of 2020 in LA.APP. No. 234 Of 2020 5 ## **Project [(2008) 17 SCC 448]** , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: “17. …..The evidence on record suggests neglect of its own right for long time in preferring appeals. **The court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The court helps those who are vigilant and 'do not slumber over their rights.”** “29. It needs no restatement at our hands that the object for fixing time limit for litigation is based on public policy fixing a life span for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare. **They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in his Jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy.”** ## 8. Again in **Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai [(2012) 5 SCC 157]** the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus: **“24.** What colour the expression “sufficient cause” would get in the factual matrix of a given case would largely depend on bona fide nature of the explanation. If the court finds that there has been no negligence on C.M Appln No.1 of 2020 in LA.APP. No. 234 Of 2020 ## 6 the part of the applicant and the cause shown for the delay does not lack bona fides, then it may condone the delay. **If on the other hand, the explanation given by the application is found to be concocted or he is thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it would be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay”.** 9. The above position has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Others** [(2013) 12 SCC 649] by holding that: i) **There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration of 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.** (ii) 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 C.M Appln No.1 of 2020 in LA.APP. No. 234 Of 2020 7 parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. (iii) **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.”** 10. Therefore, the law is succinctly laid down in the afore-cited precedents that while considering an application for condonation of delay, a routine explanation would not be enough in the nature of indicating sufficient cause to justify the delay which will depend on the back drop of each issue and which will have to be weighed carefully by the Courts based on the fact situation, and in the case of inordinate delay a strict approach is warranted and that “delay defeats equity”. 11. The only reason put forth by the petitioners in the affidavit to condone the inordinate delay of 8.5 years is that, due to an inadvertent omission on the part of the C.M Appln No.1 of 2020 in LA.APP. No. 234 Of 2020 8 Government Pleader, who failed to apply for the certified copy of the decree with the judgment, the appeal could not be filed. The said solitary reason is not at all convincing or satisfactory to inspire this Court to condone the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. It is hard to believe that it took 8.5 years for the petitioners to realise that the copy of the decree was not applied for. Even assuming it to be correct, it establishes the willful laches on the part of the petitioners. Further more, no material is produced before this Court to substantiate the aforesaid allegation. I am not at impressed by the reasons stated in the affidavit. Therefore, I take a strict view in the matter as observed in **Esha Bhattacharjee** (supra). Moreover, the right of respondent has crystallized over the passage of nearly a decade, who would be put to severe prejudice and hardship, if the delay is now condoned and the appeal is admitted. C.M Appln No.1 of 2020 in LA.APP. No. 234 Of 2020 **==> picture [8 x 14] intentionally omitted <==** Therefore, I hold that there is willful laches and negligence on the part of the petitioners in filing the appeal after a period of 3131 days. I am not inclined to condone the delay as the petitioners have not satisfactorily explained the long delay. Resultantly, the application is dismissed and consequently the appeal is also dismissed. Sd/- **C.S.DIAS** **JUDGE** SPR