CWP No.8131 of 2025 CWP No.8272 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AN H Sukhwant Singh (deceased) through LR Versus State of Punjab and others Mandir Thakur Dawara Welfare Committee Versus State of Punjab and CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. R. S. Sangwan, Advocate with Ms. Monika Sangwan, Advocate and Mr. B. S. Bajwa, Advocate, For the petitioner (s). Mr. Shekhar Mr. A. P. Kaushal, Advocate, For respondent LAPITA BANERJI, J. By this common judgment, two writ petitions No.8131 of 2025 Punjab and others State of Punjab and others of fact and law No.8131 of 2025 ( Punjab and others CWP No.8131 of 2025 CWP No.8272 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AN H CHANDIGARH CWP NO.8131 OF 2025 RESERVED ON: AUGUST 13, 2025 DATE OF DECISION Singh (deceased) through LR Versus State of Punjab and others AND CWP NO.8272 OF 2025 (O&M) Mandir Thakur Dawara through Mandir Thakur Dawara Welfare Committee Versus State of Punjab and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. R. S. Sangwan, Advocate with Ms. Monika Sangwan, Advocate and Mr. B. S. Bajwa, Advocate, For the petitioner (s). Mr. Shekhar Verma, Addl. AG, Punjab. Mr. A. P. Kaushal, Advocate, For respondent-Gram Panchayat. LAPITA BANERJI, J. By this common judgment, two writ petitions No.8131 of 2025 Sukhwant Singh (deceased) through LR Punjab and others and CWP No.8272 of 2025 State of Punjab and others, are being disposed of of fact and law arise therein. For the sake of brevity, the facts of CWP No.8131 of 2025 (Sukhwant Singh (deceased) through LR Punjab and others) are being taken into consideration. p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AN HARYANA AT CWP NO.8131 OF 2025 (O&M) RESERVED ON: AUGUST 13, 2025 DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 02, 2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondents 8272 OF 2025 (O&M) through Mandir Thakur Dawara ...Petitioner ...Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. R. S. Sangwan, Advocate with Ms. Monika Sangwan, Advocate and Verma, Addl. AG, Punjab. By this common judgment, two writ petitions, being CWP (deceased) through LR v. State of and CWP No.8272 of 2025 Mandir Thakur Dawara v. disposed of, as common questions For the sake of brevity, the facts of CWP (deceased) through LR v. State of taken into consideration. SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.02 20:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.8131 of 2025 CWP No.8272 of 2025 2. T issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing of the impugned order dated February 21, 2025 (Annexure P Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab, exercising the powers of Commissioner under Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1961 Act”). Furthermore, stay of further proceed by the respondent No.3 3. The facts leading to the instant petition are narrated hereinafter: i) On October 10, 2014, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 11 of the cum-Collector, Panchayat Lands, Kapurthala. ii) In the said petition filed under Section 11 of the 1961 Act, the petitioner sought of land admeasuring Akbarpur, Tehsil & District Kapurthala, as per consolidation in the year 1957 Bikrami. iii) The petition peaceful possession of the land in question for also claimed to iv) Vide order dated March 04, 2016 Collector accepted the claim of the petitioner and declared him to be owner of 86 Kanals 04 Marlas land 143 Kanals 02 Marlas. CWP No.8131 of 2025 CWP No.8272 of 2025 The petitioner in CWP No.8131 of 2025 issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing of the impugned order dated February 21, 2025 (Annexure P-17) passed by respondent No.2 Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab, exercising the powers of Commissioner under Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1961 Act”). Furthermore, stay of further proceedings in Appeal No.270 of 2020 filed respondent No.3-Gram Panchayat, has also been prayed for. The facts leading to the instant petition are narrated On October 10, 2014, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 11 of the 1961 Act before the Additional Deputy Commissioner Collector, Panchayat Lands, Kapurthala. In the said petition filed under Section 11 of the 1961 Act, the petitioner sought a declaration to the effect that he had become owner of land admeasuring 143 Kanals 02 Marlas situated in village r, Tehsil & District Kapurthala, as per consolidation the year 1957 Bikrami. The petitioner claimed to be in continuous peaceful possession of the land in question for to have continuously cultivated the same as the owner. Vide order dated March 04, 2016 Collector accepted the claim of the petitioner and declared him to be owner of 86 Kanals 04 Marlas land, out of the total land 143 Kanals 02 Marlas. Page 2 of 12 in CWP No.8131 of 2025 has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing of the impugned order dated passed by respondent No.2- Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab, exercising the powers of Commissioner under Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1961 Act”). Appeal No.270 of 2020 filed Gram Panchayat, has also been prayed for. The facts leading to the instant petition are narrated On October 10, 2014, the petitioner filed a petition under 1961 Act before the Additional Deputy Commissioner- In the said petition filed under Section 11 of the 1961 Act, declaration to the effect that he had become owner 143 Kanals 02 Marlas situated in village Mand r, Tehsil & District Kapurthala, as per consolidation proceedings to be in continuous uninterrupted peaceful possession of the land in question for more than 100 years and the same as the owner. Vide order dated March 04, 2016 (Annexure P-2), the Collector accepted the claim of the petitioner and declared him to be out of the total land admeasuring SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.02 20:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.8131 of 2025 CWP No.8272 of 2025 v) Respondent No.3 Appeal No.270 of 2020 under Section 11 (2) of the 1961 Act. Along with the appeal, respondent No.3 also filed an application for condonation o delay of 03 years and 10 months in filing the appeal. vi) The petitioner contested the application for condonation of delay. Both oral Commissioner passed an for condonation of delay “ 8.4.22 for arguments in the main case.” vii) The order dated March a writ petition being CWP No.7646 of 2022, that impugned order was illegal, arbitrary, non unconstitutional. viii) V ordinate Bench on the ground that the cryptic, without even a whisper of any reasoning leave alone considered reasoning indicating the basis of the decision. The matter was remanded back to the Commiss order on the application seeking condonation of delay. ix) Thereafter, v respondent No.2 Gram Panchayat in fil 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned order is arbitrary and perverse and suffers CWP No.8131 of 2025 CWP No.8272 of 2025 Respondent No.3-Gram Panchayat filed an appeal being Appeal No.270 of 2020 under Section 11 (2) of the 1961 Act. Along with the appeal, respondent No.3 also filed an application for condonation o delay of 03 years and 10 months in filing the appeal. The petitioner contested the application for condonation of delay. Both oral arguments and written submissions were advanced Commissioner passed an order dated March 04 for condonation of delay, which reads as under: Delay is condoned. Case is adjourned for dated 8.4.22 for arguments in the main case.” The order dated March 04, 2022 was challenged by filing of ition being CWP No.7646 of 2022, that impugned order was illegal, arbitrary, non unconstitutional. Vide order dated September 28, 2022 ordinate Bench, the impugned order dated March on the ground that the said order was totally non cryptic, without even a whisper of any reasoning leave alone considered reasoning indicating the basis of the decision. The matter was remanded back to the Commissioner for passing a well reasoned and considered order on the application seeking condonation of delay. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated February 21, 2025, respondent No.2-Commissioner condoned the delay of respondent No.3 Gram Panchayat in filing the appeal. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned order is arbitrary and perverse and suffers p. 3 Gram Panchayat filed an appeal being Appeal No.270 of 2020 under Section 11 (2) of the 1961 Act. Along with the appeal, respondent No.3 also filed an application for condonation of delay of 03 years and 10 months in filing the appeal. The petitioner contested the application for condonation of and written submissions were advanced. The 04, 2022 on the application reads as under: Delay is condoned. Case is adjourned for dated 8.4.22 for arguments in the main case.” , 2022 was challenged by filing of ition being CWP No.7646 of 2022, inter-alia, on the ground that impugned order was illegal, arbitrary, non-speaking and ide order dated September 28, 2022 passed by a Co- , the impugned order dated March 04, 2022 was set-aside order was totally non-speaking, sketchy and cryptic, without even a whisper of any reasoning leave alone considered reasoning indicating the basis of the decision. The matter was remanded ioner for passing a well reasoned and considered order on the application seeking condonation of delay. ide impugned order dated February 21, 2025, Commissioner condoned the delay of respondent No.3- Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned order is arbitrary and perverse and suffers SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.02 20:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.8131 of 2025 CWP No.8272 of 2025 from complete non corroborate the bald statement leading the Appellate Authority petitioner/respondent No.2 was a person of influence or that he had acted in collusion and conspiracy with the elected Sarpanch from 2013 to 2018 due to which neither was any appeal filed against the disputed orders nor were the said orders 5. Furthermore, it is submitted Commissioner for filing of appeals individuals and leniency people while condoning the law. 6. Notice of motion was is ordinate Bench of this Court. 7. Mr. respondents No.1 and 2 submits that the impugned order respondent No.2 as delay in filing the appeal has been rightly condoned. 8. Mr. Kaushal, learned counsel appears for respondent No.3 Gram Panchayat that the new Gram Panchayat for general elections were held in October, 2024. The who was in office till 2018, neither to file an a hand over the record of Court case to his suc CWP No.8131 of 2025 CWP No.8272 of 2025 from complete non-application of mind. There was no iota of evidence to the bald statements made on behalf of the Gram Panchayat the Appellate Authority-Commissioner petitioner/respondent No.2 was a person of influence or that he had acted in collusion and conspiracy with the elected Sarpanch from 2013 to 2018 neither was any appeal filed against the disputed orders nor said orders informed to the subsequently elected Sarpanch. Furthermore, it is submitted that the finding Commissioner with regard to the time permitted to the appeals being longer compared to individuals and leniency required to be shown people while condoning the delay, is against the well Notice of motion was issued on March 24, 2025 by a Co ordinate Bench of this Court. Mr. Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 submits that the impugned order respondent No.2 is a well reasoned one and should not be interfered with delay in filing the appeal has been rightly condoned. Mr. Kaushal, learned counsel appears for respondent No.3 Gram Panchayat and refers to his reply dated May 05, 2025 and submits that the new Gram Panchayat for village Akbarpur was formed after neral elections were held in October, 2024. The who was in office till 2018, connived with the petitioner and neither to file an appeal against the order dated March 04, 2016, nor hand over the record of Court case to his suc p. 4 There was no iota of evidence to behalf of the Gram Panchayat Commissioner to hold that the petitioner/respondent No.2 was a person of influence or that he had acted in collusion and conspiracy with the elected Sarpanch from 2013 to 2018 neither was any appeal filed against the disputed orders nor informed to the subsequently elected Sarpanch. that the findings of the to the time permitted to the Gram Panchayats appeals filed by the private shown to an elected body of , is against the well-settled principles of sued on March 24, 2025 by a Co- , learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 submits that the impugned order passed by should not be interfered with delay in filing the appeal has been rightly condoned. Mr. Kaushal, learned counsel appears for respondent No.3- refers to his reply dated May 05, 2025 and submits Akbarpur was formed after neral elections were held in October, 2024. The erstwhile Ex-Sarpanch connived with the petitioner and chose ppeal against the order dated March 04, 2016, nor to hand over the record of Court case to his successor-Satbir Singh, who SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.02 20:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.8131 of 2025 CWP No.8272 of 2025 held the office of BDPO, Dhilwan wrote a letter dated January 06, 2020 regarding government taking a serious view order dated March 04, 2016, t certified copies of the order and filed an appeal on March 23, 2020. He further submits that condoned since on merits the land being Hasad Rusad Zar Khewat the Gram Panchayat. on merits, the same should not be thrown out at the very threshold technical grounds of delay. 9. This Court has heard lea perused the material on record. 10. This Court finds that apart from learned counsel appearing for the Gram Panchayat, there was no material on record to come to the conclusion petitioner/respondent No.2 in the appeal, was a person of influence and the Ex-Sarpanch acted in collusion and conspired with him, resulting in non-filing of the the mind of this Court that while Court cannot interfere with the decision itself but the decision making process of the authorities on no material at all or is perverse. Interference in such cases is called for, as per the settled proposition of law. CWP No.8131 of 2025 CWP No.8272 of 2025 ld the office of Sarpanch from 2018 to 2023. It is only when the BDPO, Dhilwan wrote a letter dated January 06, 2020 regarding government taking a serious view of non-filing of order dated March 04, 2016, the Ex-Sarpanch Satbir Singh obtained the certified copies of the order and filed an appeal on March 23, 2020. He further submits that procedural error relating to delay should be condoned since on merits the land being recorded as Zar Khewat” in the jamabandi for the year 1962 the Gram Panchayat. Therefore, as the Gram Panchayat has a good case on merits, the same should not be thrown out at the very threshold grounds of delay. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. This Court finds that apart from the learned counsel appearing for the Gram Panchayat, there was no material on record to come to the conclusion by the Commissioner petitioner/respondent No.2 in the appeal, was a person of influence and Sarpanch acted in collusion and conspired with him, resulting in the appeal within the stipulated period ind of this Court that while reviewing an order judicially, Court cannot interfere with the decision itself but the decision making process of the authorities on no material at all or is based on consideration is perverse. Interference in such cases is called for, as per the settled proposition of law. p. 5 Sarpanch from 2018 to 2023. It is only when the BDPO, Dhilwan wrote a letter dated January 06, 2020 regarding filing of the appeal against the Sarpanch Satbir Singh obtained the certified copies of the order and filed an appeal on March 23, 2020. He relating to delay should be recorded as “Shamlat Deh in the jamabandi for the year 1962-63 vests in the Gram Panchayat has a good case on merits, the same should not be thrown out at the very threshold on rned counsel for the parties and the bald statements made by learned counsel appearing for the Gram Panchayat, there was no material by the Commissioner that the petitioner/respondent No.2 in the appeal, was a person of influence and Sarpanch acted in collusion and conspired with him, resulting in appeal within the stipulated period. It is also not lost to reviewing an order judicially, a writ Court cannot interfere with the decision itself but has the power to review the decision making process of the authorities when the decision is based nsideration of irrelevant material or is perverse. Interference in such cases is called for, as per the settled SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.02 20:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.8131 of 2025 CWP No.8272 of 2025 11. This Court draws its support from Hon’ble Supreme Court in others 1995 (6) SCC 749 “xxx 12. review of the manner in of judicial review is meant to ensure that the receives which the of the 12. In Ltd. and others is imperative for the writ Court to bear in mind the distinction between “some evidence or no evidence would lead to the authorities to arrive at a final conclusion. There has to be a nexus between the evi there is no evidence at all or no nexus between the evidence adduced and the final conclusion, the decision can be interfered with 13. In Appeal No.825 by the Supreme Court is based on “no evidence ignoring of relevant material or is with findings are perverse reasonable person placed in the like circumstances Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be available to the petitioners and intervention 14. The reasoning that the new Sarpanch aware of the impugned orders passed by the Collector also defies logic. CWP No.8131 of 2025 CWP No.8272 of 2025 This Court draws its support from Hon’ble Supreme Court in B. C. Chaturvedi v. U others 1995 (6) SCC 749, where it has been held as under xxx 12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the of judicial review is meant to ensure that the receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court.” In Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, 2006 (4) SCC 713, it was held by the for the writ Court to bear in mind the distinction between some evidence or no evidence” and whether to the authorities to arrive at a final conclusion. There has to us between the evidence adduced and the final conclusion there is no evidence at all or no nexus between the evidence adduced and the final conclusion, the decision can be interfered with In Union Bank of India v. Biswanath Bhattacharjee 8258 of 2009 after considering the precedent by the Supreme Court that the consistent view was that where a decision no evidence” or consideration of an irrelevant material or ignoring of relevant material or is with mala fide findings are perverse or that it could not have been rendered by any reasonable person placed in the like circumstances Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be available to the petitioners and intervention in such a matter would be warranted. The reasoning that the new Sarpanch aware of the impugned orders passed by the Collector also defies logic. Page 6 of 12 This Court draws its support from the judgment rendered by B. C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and where it has been held as under: Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual not to ensure that the conclusion authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Co. held by the Apex Court that it for the writ Court to bear in mind the distinction between ” and whether “some evidence” adduced to the authorities to arrive at a final conclusion. There has to and the final conclusion and if there is no evidence at all or no nexus between the evidence adduced and the final conclusion, the decision can be interfered with. Biswanath Bhattacharjee, Civil after considering the precedents, it has been held consistent view was that where a decision or consideration of an irrelevant material or mala fide intent or that the or that it could not have been rendered by any reasonable person placed in the like circumstances, the remedies under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be available to the in such a matter would be warranted. The reasoning that the new Sarpanch-Satbir Singh was not aware of the impugned orders passed by the Collector also defies logic. SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.02 20:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.8131 of 2025 CWP No.8272 of 2025 Any Sarpanch of his predecessor bearer can be allowed to shi basis, that his predecessor collusively with the opposite party and th condoned. 15. Furthermore, theCommissioner that Gram Panchayats should be viewed differently from private individuals and their applications for condonation of delay should be conside perverse, being legally un laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India including the Living Media India Ltd and another the said case, it has been agencies or instrumentalities are under a special obligation to perform their duties with diligence and c an exception to the rule. Relevant extract thereof is reproduced herein under: “xxx 28. of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologie being used and available. binds everybody, including the Government CWP No.8131 of 2025 CWP No.8272 of 2025 Any Sarpanch currently holding office would assume the responsibility predecessor-in-office and have access to office records. bearer can be allowed to shirk his responsibility by stating that his predecessor-in-office had failed in its duties and acted collusively with the opposite party and therefore, the delay should be Furthermore, to the mind of this Court Commissioner that Gram Panchayats should be viewed differently from private individuals and their applications for condonation of delay should be considered more leniently than that of private individuals, is perverse, being legally untenable. Such a finding is fla laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India case of Office of the Post Master General Living Media India Ltd and another, reported in the said case, it has been held that the government bodies or their or instrumentalities are under a special obligation to perform their duties with diligence and commitment and condonation of delay is to the rule. Relevant extract thereof is reproduced herein “xxx 28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologie being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government p. 7 would assume the responsibility and have access to office records. No office k his responsibility by stating, without any office had failed in its duties and acted erefore, the delay should be to the mind of this Court the finding of Commissioner that Gram Panchayats should be viewed differently from private individuals and their applications for condonation of delay red more leniently than that of private individuals, is tenable. Such a finding is flawed given the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in various judgments Office of the Post Master General and others v. reported in (2012) 3 SCC 56., In that the government bodies or their or instrumentalities are under a special obligation to perform ommitment and condonation of delay is to the rule. Relevant extract thereof is reproduced herein Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government. SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.02 20:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.8131 of 2025 CWP No.8272 of 2025 29. government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and a the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. depart they perform their duties with diligence and commitment Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone und not be swirled for the benefit of a few. 30. explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department had miserably cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay. Xxx” 16. In Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and question before the Apex Court was whether the High Court was justified in entertaining a petition for condonation of delay of 2449 days preferred against an interim order dated February 25, 2004 passed by the learned Single certain principles were culled out by the Apex Court which are extracted hereinafter: “xxx 21. broadly be culled out are: 21.1 (i)There should be a li oriented, non application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. 21.2 (ii) The terms “sufficient cause” should in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are CWP No.8131 of 2025 CWP No.8272 of 2025 29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and a the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. 30. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department had miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay. Xxx” In Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others question before the Apex Court was whether the High Court was justified in entertaining a petition for condonation of delay of 2449 days preferred against an interim order dated February 25, 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge. Answering the question in the negative, certain principles were culled out by the Apex Court which are extracted hereinafter:- “xxx 21. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are: 21.1 (i)There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. 21.2 (ii) The terms “sufficient cause” should in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are p. 8 In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government ments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. er the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of others (2013) 12 SCC 649, the question before the Apex Court was whether the High Court was justified in entertaining a petition for condonation of delay of 2449 days preferred against an interim order dated February 25, 2004 passed by Judge. Answering the question in the negative, certain principles were culled out by the Apex Court which are From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can beral, pragmatic, justice- pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove 21.2 (ii) The terms “sufficient cause” should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.02 20:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.8131 of 2025 CWP No.8272 of 2025 to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact situation. 21.3 (iii) Substantial justice being paramount an technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. 21.4 (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. 21.5 (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. 21.6 (vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the cou that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice. 21.7 (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. 21.8 (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach 21.9 (ix) The conduct, behavior and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the court balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. 21.10 (x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the applica should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation. 21.11 (xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the tech 21.12 (xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception. CWP No.8131 of 2025 CWP No.8272 of 2025 to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact situation. 21.3 (iii) Substantial justice being paramount an technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. 21.4 (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. 21.5 (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. 21.6 (vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice. 21.7 (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. 21.8 (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. 21.9 (ix) The conduct, behavior and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. 21.10 (x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation. 21.11 (xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation. 21.12 (xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception. Page 9 of 12 to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact- 21.3 (iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and 21.4 (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. 21.5 (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. 21.6 (vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public rts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of 21.7 (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. 21.8 (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. 21.9 (ix) The conduct, behavior and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental s are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal 21.10 (x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the tion are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily 21.11 (xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking nicalities of law of limitation. 21.12 (xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception. SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.02 20:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.8131 of 2025 CWP No.8272 of 2025 21.13 (xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude. 22. guidelines taking note of the present day scenario. They are: 22.1 (a) An drafted with careful concern and not in a haphazard manner harbouring the notion that courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to ju 22.2 (b) An application for condonation of delay should not be dealt with in a routine manner on the base of individual philosophy which is basically subjective. 22.3 (c ) Though no precise formula can be laid down regard being conscious effort for achieving consistency and collegiality of the adjudicatory system should be made as that is the ultimate institutional motto. 22.4 (d) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a nonchalant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters. Xxx” It was held that neither while one moves an application f years on the ground of lack of knowledge or failure of justice. Accordingly, the appeals were allowed and the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, condoning the delay was set 17. In a recent j v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 489 to condone the delay of 12 years and 158 days in filing of the restoration application before the High Court. The High Court had refused to entertain an application filed by the appellants for exercise of its jurisdiction CWP No.8131 of 2025 CWP No.8272 of 2025 21.13 (xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude. 22. To the aforesaid principles we may add some more guidelines taking note of the present day scenario. They are: 22.1 (a) An application for condonation of delay should be drafted with careful concern and not in a haphazard manner harbouring the notion that courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system. 22.2 (b) An application for condonation of delay should not be dealt with in a routine manner on the base of individual philosophy which is basically subjective. 22.3 (c ) Though no precise formula can be laid down regard being had to the concept of judicial discretion, yet a conscious effort for achieving consistency and collegiality of the adjudicatory system should be made as that is the ultimate institutional motto. 22.4 (d) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a nonchalant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters. Xxx” It was held that neither leisure nor while one moves an application for condonation of delay of almost 07 years on the ground of lack of knowledge or failure of justice. Accordingly, the appeals were allowed and the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, condoning the delay was set In a recent judgment passed in Union of India and another v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) SLP (Civil) No. 21096 of 2019 2024 SCC OnLine SC 489 , the Hon’ble Apex Court refused to condone the delay of 12 years and 158 days in filing of the restoration application before the High Court. The High Court had refused to entertain an application filed by the appellants for exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for p. 10 21.13 (xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some To the aforesaid principles we may add some more guidelines taking note of the present day scenario. They are: application for condonation of delay should be drafted with careful concern and not in a haphazard manner harbouring the notion that courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a stice dispensation system. 22.2 (b) An application for condonation of delay should not be dealt with in a routine manner on the base of individual philosophy which is basically subjective. 22.3 (c ) Though no precise formula can be laid down had to the concept of judicial discretion, yet a conscious effort for achieving consistency and collegiality of the adjudicatory system should be made as that is the 22.4 (d) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non- serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a nonchalant manner requires to be curbed, of nor pleasure has any room or condonation of delay of almost 07 years on the ground of lack of knowledge or failure of justice. Accordingly, the appeals were allowed and the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, condoning the delay was set-aside. Union of India and another (D) SLP (Civil) No. 21096 of 2019 , the Hon’ble Apex Court refused to condone the delay of 12 years and 158 days in filing of the restoration application before the High Court. The High Court had refused to entertain an application filed by the appellants for exercise of under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.02 20:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.8131 of 2025 CWP No.8272 of 2025 condoning the delay of 12 years and 158 days, when the same was dismissed for non following findings: “xxx 24. that we are not going to look into the merits of the matter as long as we are not convinced that sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of such a long and inordinate delay. 25. or a State or Union of India when it comes to condoning the gross delay of more than 12 years. If the litigant chooses to approach the court long after the lapse of the time prescribed under the relevant provisions of the law, then he cannot turn arou caused to either side by the delay being condoned. This litigation between the parties started sometime in 1981. We are in 2024. Almost 43 years have elapsed. However, till date the respondent has not been able to reap his decree. It would be a mockery of justice if we condone the delay of 12 years and 158 days and once again ask the respondent to undergo the rigmarole of the legal proceedings. 26. court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the appellants, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for instituting the proceedings for which law limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a du explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the mer purpose of condoning the delay. 27. not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and CWP No.8131 of 2025 CWP No.8272 of 2025 condoning the delay of 12 years and 158 days, when the same was dismissed for non-prosecution. The Apex Court categorically made the following findings:- “xxx 24. In the aforesaid circumstances, we made that we are not going to look into the merits of the matter as long as we are not convinced that sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of such a long and inordinate delay. 25. It hardly matters whether a litigant is a private p or a State or Union of India when it comes to condoning the gross delay of more than 12 years. If the litigant chooses to approach the court long after the lapse of the time prescribed under the relevant provisions of the law, then he cannot turn around and say that no prejudice would be caused to either side by the delay being condoned. This litigation between the parties started sometime in 1981. We are in 2024. Almost 43 years have elapsed. However, till date the respondent has not been able to reap his decree. It would be a mockery of justice if we condone the delay of 12 years and 158 days and once again ask the respondent to undergo the rigmarole of the legal proceedings. 26. The length of the delay is a relevant matter which the ourt must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the appellants, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the mer purpose of condoning the delay. 27. We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and p. 11 condoning the delay of 12 years and 158 days, when the same was prosecution. The Apex Court categorically made the In the aforesaid circumstances, we made it very clear that we are not going to look into the merits of the matter as long as we are not convinced that sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of such a long and inordinate It hardly matters whether a litigant is a private party or a State or Union of India when it comes to condoning the gross delay of more than 12 years. If the litigant chooses to approach the court long after the lapse of the time prescribed under the relevant provisions of the law, then he nd and say that no prejudice would be caused to either side by the delay being condoned. This litigation between the parties started sometime in 1981. We are in 2024. Almost 43 years have elapsed. However, till date the respondent has not been able to reap the fruits of his decree. It would be a mockery of justice if we condone the delay of 12 years and 158 days and once again ask the respondent to undergo the rigmarole of the legal The length of the delay is a relevant matter which the ourt must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the appellants, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for instituting the has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non- deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The ty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.02 20:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.8131 of 2025 CWP No.8272 of 2025 principles of equity. Damocles' hanging over the head of the respondent for indefinite period of time to be determined at the whims and fancies of the appellants. Xxx” 18. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned order suffers from perversity and procedural evidence at all the well-settled principles of law governing the field deserves to be set 19. A dated February 21, 2025 (Annexure P Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab, exercising the powers of Commissioner is set No.8131 of 2025 that the order dated March 04, 2016 passed by the Collector has attained finality as the respondent No.3 neither the stipulated period nor was able to provide any condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 20. Connected applications, if any, are also disposed of accordingly. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 02 Shalini Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: CWP No.8131 of 2025 CWP No.8272 of 2025 principles of equity. We should not keep the 'Sword of Damocles' hanging over the head of the respondent for indefinite period of time to be determined at the whims and fancies of the appellants. Xxx” This Court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned order from perversity and procedural impropriety evidence at all, is a result of non-application of mind and is settled principles of law governing the field deserves to be set-aside. As a result of the above discussion February 21, 2025 (Annexure P-17) passed by respondent No.2 Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab, exercising the powers of Commissioner is set-aside and the writ petition .8131 of 2025 and CWP No.8272 of 2025 that the order dated March 04, 2016 passed by the Collector has attained finality as the respondent No.3 neither had challenged the same within the stipulated period nor was able to provide any condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Connected applications, if any, are also disposed of (DEEPAK SIBAL) (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 02, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No p. 12 We should not keep the 'Sword of Damocles' hanging over the head of the respondent for indefinite period of time to be determined at the whims and This Court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned order impropriety, as it is based on no application of mind and is also against settled principles of law governing the field. Accordingly, it result of the above discussion, the impugned order 17) passed by respondent No.2- Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab, exercising the aside and the writ petitions, being CWP and CWP No.8272 of 2025, are allowed by holding that the order dated March 04, 2016 passed by the Collector has attained challenged the same within the stipulated period nor was able to provide any ‘sufficient cause’ for Connected applications, if any, are also disposed of (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE SHALINI BHATIA 2025.09.02 20:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document