The Madras High Court has dismissed applications filed by the District Collector, Thiruvallur, and other revenue officials seeking to condone a delay of 972 days in filing writ appeals against a 2021 order granting land compensation. The Division Bench, comprising Justice R. Suresh Kumar and Justice Shamim Ahmed, ruled that the State failed to provide a “satisfactory explanation” for the inordinate delay, terming the inaction as “complete careless and reckless.”
Dismissing the plea on the grounds of limitation, the Court directed the authorities to comply with the earlier order of the Writ Court and disburse the compensation to the landowners within two months.
Background of the Case
The litigation stems from the acquisition of lands in Ennore Village, Thiruvallur District, for the construction of an Over Bridge. The respondents, P. Rajasekaran and P. Manoharan, were the owners of the properties in question, having purchased them in 1982 and subsequently obtained planning permissions and mutated revenue records.
While the Government acquired portions of their lands and paid compensation for the superstructures, it denied compensation for the land itself. The District Revenue Officer rejected their claim on February 16, 2018, stating that the subject lands were classified as ‘Anadheenam’ (Government/ownerless land) in the ‘A’ Register, despite the Town Survey Land Register (TSLR) reflecting the petitioners’ names.
Aggrieved by the rejection, the landowners filed Writ Petitions (W.P.Nos. 13803 and 13397 of 2018). On October 26, 2021, a learned Single Judge allowed the petitions, setting aside the rejection order and directing the respondents to disburse compensation for the lands within four weeks.
The State, intending to challenge this order, filed Writ Appeals (WA.SR.Nos. 106444 & 105450 of 2024) in 2024, accompanied by Civil Miscellaneous Petitions (C.M.P.Nos. 17783 & 17784 of 2024) seeking to condone the delay of 972 days in filing the appeals.
Arguments of the Parties
The State’s Contentions: The Special Government Pleader, appearing for the appellants (District Collector and others), argued that the certified copies of the Writ Court’s order were received on January 3, 2022. He contended that the delay was “neither wilful nor wanton” but was caused by the “COVID-19 pandemic situation and transfer of officials.”
On merits, the State argued that since the lands were classified as ‘Anadheenam’ in the A-Register, the revenue officials had previously erred in entering the names of the respondents’ vendors without proper proceedings. They contended that an enquiry was necessary to ascertain how those entries were made.
The Respondents’ Contentions: Counsel for the landowners strongly opposed the condonation of delay. He argued that the delay of 972 days was huge and that the “COVID-19 pandemic situation was over before 2022.” The respondents submitted that the State failed to provide contemporaneous records, office orders, or transfer orders to substantiate the claim that they were prevented from filing the appeal for each specific period.
The counsel highlighted that the respondents are senior citizens in their 70s who have been pursuing the matter for years. He stated, “The continued withholding of compensation deprives them of the fruits of a lawful order and prolongs the hardship inflicted upon them.”
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Division Bench examined the explanation offered under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. While acknowledging that “sufficient cause” should be construed liberally to advance substantial justice, the Court emphasized that this applies only where there is no gross negligence or deliberate inaction.
Key Observations on Limitation: The Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala (1998), reiterating that the law of limitation must be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes.
Citing Maniben Devraj Shah Vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai (2012), the Bench observed:
“In cases involving the State… no premium can be given for total lethargy or utter negligence on the part of the officers of the State… and the applications filed by them for condonation of delay cannot be allowed as a matter of course.”
The Court also relied on Pundlik Jalam Patil (2008), noting that “Delay defeats equity” and the court assists those who are vigilant, not those who slumber over their rights.
Findings on the Facts: The Bench found the State’s explanation regarding the pandemic and administrative transfers insufficient to justify a delay of nearly three years. The Court noted:
“After perusal of the records, this Court finds that there is neither a satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay of 972 days… nor are there any documents annexed in support of the averments made in the affidavit seeking condonation of delay.”
The Judges further remarked:
“We find that here is a case, which shows complete careless and reckless long delay on the part of the Petitioners/appellants, which has remain virtually unexplained at all.”
Decision
The High Court held that the prayer for condoning the delay was baseless and dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Petitions. Consequently, the Writ Appeals were dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
In a significant relief to the landowners, the Bench issued a specific direction to the State authorities regarding the implementation of the original order:
“The appellants are also directed to make compliance of the judgment and order passed by the writ Court dated 26.10.2021 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
- Case Title: The District Collector, Thiruvallur District & Ors. Vs. P. Rajasekaran / P. Manoharan
- Case Numbers: C.M.P.Nos. 17783 & 17784 of 2024 in WA.SR.Nos. 106444 & 105450 of 2024
