Court Imposes Costs for Malafide Intent and Suppression of Facts in Land Acquisition Case
In a significant ruling, the Gujarat High Court has rejected an application filed by the Superintending Archaeologist seeking condonation of a 718-day delay in filing a First Appeal against a judgment related to land acquisition. The judgment, delivered by Justice M. K. Thakker, highlighted the failure of the applicant to provide a sufficient and bona fide explanation for the inordinate delay and imposed costs for the suppression of material facts.
The case pertains to the delay in filing an appeal against the judgment and decree dated July 31, 2023, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bhachau, District Kutch, concerning land acquisition proceedings. The applicant attributed the delay to mandatory governmental procedures involving administrative approvals, which the court found inadequate.
The court noted that the applicant's explanation, primarily based on administrative inefficiencies, did not constitute sufficient cause under the Limitation Act, 1963. The court emphasized that delays cannot be condoned merely due to administrative lapses or as an act of generosity, especially when the applicant's intent appeared negligent and mala fide.
Furthermore, the court criticized the applicant for failing to disclose material facts, such as assurances given to deposit the awarded amount during the execution proceedings. Despite repeated opportunities and notices from the executing court, the applicant did not comply, leading to the issuance of an attachment warrant.
The court referred to the Supreme Court's rulings in similar cases, underscoring that substantial justice should not come at the cost of prejudice to the opposing party. The court highlighted that the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence, a crucial test for condoning delays.
As a result, the court dismissed the application, imposing costs of Rs. 1,00,000 to be recovered from the erring officers responsible for the lapses. The costs are to be deposited within three weeks and disbursed in favor of the original claimants after due verification.
This judgment serves as a stern reminder to governmental bodies about the importance of adhering to procedural timelines and the consequences of failing to act diligently in legal matters.
Bottom Line:
Application for condonation of delay in filing the First Appeal rejected due to insufficient and mala fide explanation. Delay attributed to administrative procedures and lack of bona fide intent to prosecute the matter diligently. Costs imposed on erring officers for suppression of material facts.
Statutory provision(s): Limitation Act, 1963
