Collector Land Acquisition, HPPWD and another vs. Pat Ram (deceased) through LRs. CMP(M) No. 888 of 2024 07.05.2025 Present: Mr. Manish Thakur, Deputy Advocate General, for the applicants/appellants. Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate, for respondents No. 4 and 5. Mr. Rajinder Singh Chandel, Advocate, for respondents No. 6(i) to 6(v). Respondents No. 2, 3, are ex parte. CMP(M) Nos. 1865 & 1866 of 2024 Despite being served, none has put in appearance on behalf of proposed LRs No. 1(a) to 1(d). No reply is intended to be filed on behalf of the non-applicants. Non-applicants have no objections, if in case the applications are allowed and the legal heirs of deceased respondent No.1 are ordered to be brought on record. Respondent No.1 is stated to have died on 07.06.2024. The details of legal heirs are given in para 3 of CMP(M) No. 1865 of 2024. The same is in consonance with the legal heir certificate appended alongwith the present applications. The right to sue survives in the said legal heirs of deceased respondent No.1. For the sufficient cause shown in CMP(M) No.1866 of 2024, delay in bringing on record the legal heirs of deceased respondent No.1 is condoned. Abatement, if any, is set aside. Amended memo of parties filed alongwith the present applications is ordered to be taken on record. The applications stand disposed of. CMP(M) No. 888 of 2024 Heard counsel for the applicants. Perused the pleadings. In the filing of the present appeal, there is a delay of about 196 days. The same has been duly explained in the application filed for condonation of delay. Even otherwise, while dealing with an application for condonation of delay filed by the State, one has to be conscious of the bureaucratic delays, impersonal nature of the governmental functioning, institutional interest and hence a justice oriented liberal approach has to be taken while dealing with such applications. In this respect, it would be appropriate to refer to decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in State of Manipur and others vs. Koting Lamkang, 2019 (10) SCC 408. The relevant extract of the same is being reproduced herein below:- “7. But while concluding as above, it was necessary for the Court to also be conscious of the bureaucratic delay and the slow pace in reaching a government decision and the routine way of deciding whether the State should prefer an appeal against a judgment adverse to it. Even while observing that the law of limitation would harshly affect the party, the Court felt that the delay in the appeal filed by the State, should not be condoned. 8. Regard should be had in similar such circumstances to the impersonal nature of the Government’s functioning where individual officers may fail to act responsibly. This in turn, would result in injustice to the institutional interest of the State. If the appeal filed by State are lost for individual default, those who are at fault, will not usually be individually affected”. Other than the aforesaid, it would also be appropriate to refer to judgment dated 09.10.2023, passed in Civil Appeal No.5867 of 2015 titled Sheo Raj Singh (deceased) through LRs. and others vs. Union of India and another. The relevant extract of the same is being reproduced herein below:-. “37. Having bestowed serious consideration to the rival contentions, we feel that the High Court’s decision to condone the delay on account of the first respondent’s inability to present the appeal within time, for the reasons assigned therein, does not suffer from any error warranting interference. As the aforementioned judgments have shown, such an exercise of discretion does, at times, call for a liberal and justice-oriented approach by the Courts, where certain leeway could be provided to the State. The hidden forces that are at work in preventing an appeal by the State being presented within the prescribed period of limitation so as not to allow a higher court to pronounce upon the legality and validity of an order of a lower court and thereby secure unholy gains, can hardly be ignored. Impediments in the working of the grand scheme of governmental functions have to be removed by taking a pragmatic view on balancing of the competing interests.” Hence, for the reasons/sufficient cause stated in the application & the aforesaid portion of law, delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of. CMP No. ____ of 2025 Be registered. The operation and execution of the judgment dated 25.07.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Mandi is stayed subject to deposit of the entire compensation amount alongwith up-to-date interest within a period of four weeks from today. The application stands disposed of. RFA No. _____ of 2025 Be registered. Admit Call for the records. On taking steps within one week, issue post admission notice to the non appearing respondents mentioned in the amended memo, returnable within four weeks. (Bipin C. Negi) Judge May 07, 2024 Tarun