Public Interest Paramount: Madras High Court Condones 32-Year Delay By State In Filing Appeal In Title Dispute Case, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Cost

Condoning 32-year delay by Tamil Nadu government in filing an appeal in a land dispute case, the Madras High Court said that public interest is paramount and if it shown that the public interest has suffered due to fraud, the court could use its discretionary power to condone delay. “Public interest is the paramount consideration while considering the plea of Government to condone delay. If it is shown that public interest has suffered owing to acts of the fraud or collusion on the part of the officers or agent and where the officers have failed in their trust, the discretionary relief of condoning delay could be granted. The said principles of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was followed consistently till the decision of the Post Master General vs. Living Media India Ltd reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563,” the court said. Justice KK Ramakrishnan observed that the court must always march towards safeguarding public interest and avoid miscarriage of justice. The court noted that when the delay was properly explained, and there was bona fide in the explanation for the delay, it could be condoned. “Everyone has two eyes but no one has same view” this is a known proverb. This Court's view always march towards the safeguarding public interest, achieving social justice, doing the substantial justice, avoiding the miscarriage of justice and preventing any form of unjust enrichment by exercising parens parties jurisdiction to product the government property. Therefore, this Court holds that delay is properly explained and there is every bonafide in the explanation offered by the learned Additional Advocate General to condone the delay of 11926 days in filing the Second Appeal of the above circumstances and hence, this Court inclines to allow the petition,” the court said. The court was hearing an application filed by the State of Tamil Nadu to condone the delay of 11926 days (amounts to approx 32 years) in filing a second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Devakottai. The respondents (original plaintiff) had filed the suit against the District Collector, Ramanathapuram, in 1983 seeking a declaration of title to the suit schedule property to an extent of 291.80 acres in Karaikudi. In the suit, it was claimed that the government had notified and taken over the land under the Tamil Nadu Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 26, 1948 and refused to receive revenue charges on the ground that the land was recorded as Assessment waste Dry land. The government had ordered for removal of encroachment from the land and had issued notice. Challenging this, the suit was filed. The trial court had decreed the suit and the same was confirmed by the 1st Appellate judge in 1988. Though the state had filed a second appeal in 2005, it was not adjudicated. The Additional Advocate General submitted that the suit itself was not maintainable since the decree for declaration and injunction was obtained in a fraudulent manner, without having any possession over the lands. It was argued that the issue needs to be adjudicated in the interest of social justice to provide lands to the landless poor and downtrodden. He argued that in the present case, there was a fraudulent arrangement between the authorities and the parties, and a fraud had been committed in not processing the appeal filed earlier. The court noted that the criteria for condoning delay was not the extent of delay but the acceptable reason for delay. The court noted no law had been laid down to dismiss the condone delay petitions when the order was obtained by fraudulent litigation. The court added that dismissing the appeal, when the order was obtained fraudulently, could cause injustice to the public and the social justice system. The court added that when the government did not have direct knowledge about the result of the litigation against the Government, the delay should be viewed leniently, as otherwise, it would bring the government to a standstill. While the court condemned the attitude of the officers for not pursuing the litigation properly, the court added that the Government should not suffer due to the acts of the officers. “When the officials, namely, the human agency have not properly processed the appeal remedy and have not taken decision to contest the claim of the plaintiff and seek its dismissal, by way of filing an appeal, the same cannot be put against the state and public interest,” the court said. The court was thus inclined to condone the delay by imposing a cost of Rs. 5 Lakh to be paid to the legal heirs of the original plaintiffs. Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. J. Ravindran Additional Advocate General, Assisted by Mr. M. Muthumanickam Government Advocate Counsel for Respondents: Mrs. A.L.Gandhimathi Senior Advocate On behalf of Mr. C.Mahadevan, Mr.S.Manikandan, Mr.Raguvaran Gopalan Case Title: The ...

Public Interest Paramount: Madras High Court Condones 32-Year Delay By State In Filing Appeal In Title Dispute Case, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Cost

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

Public Interest Paramount: Madras High Court Condones 32-Year Delay By State In Filing Appeal In Title Dispute Case, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Cost

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers