REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Vs. THULASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Civil Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed to condone the delay in filing the Appeal Suits against the orders passed by the Special Subordinate Court, Vellore in the following LAOPs: <IMG>JUDGEMENT_171_LAWS(MAD)2_2023_1.jpg</IMG>

(2.) The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the petitioner made a submission that the Awards were passed on 27/2/2018 and the judgment copy applications were made ready on 11/6/2018 and thereafter, the Government Pleader has given an opinion, stating that the cases were not fit for filing appeals. Further opinion is sought for from the learned Additional Advocate General, who in turn, has given an opinion that the cases were fit for filing appeals. Thus, there was a delay in filing appeals. The reason stated is not convincing, in view of the fact that the Awards were passed on 27/2/2018 itself and the copies were delivered to the office of the learned Government Pleader on 18/6/2018. Even then, they have not preferred any appeal and merely securing an opinion from the learned Government Pleader and the learned Additional Advocate General is not a ground to condone the delay of 1414 and 1420 days respectively in filing the appeal suits.

(3.) Uncondonable delay cannot be condoned in a routine manner by the Courts. Filing of a suit or application within the limitation is the rule. Condonation of delay is an exception. While condoning the delay, more specifically, enormous delay, the Courts have to consider the genuinity of the reasons furnished by the person, seeking condonation of delay. Only if the reasons are genuine and acceptable, then alone, such huge delay are to be condoned and not otherwise. Law of limitation is substantive law. Thus, the condonation of delay cannot be a routine affair. A person, who is not vigilant, is not entitled for the relief after a prolonged period.