Executive Officer, Antiyur Town Panchayat v. G. Arumugam (Dead) By Legal Representatives ., Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The first respondent filed OS No. 267 of 1992 before the Additional District Munsif Court, Bhavani, seeking declaration of title and possession over certain land. The Gram Panchayat, the defendant, asserted that the land was natham poramboke (village common land) standing in its name. The trial court dismissed the suit on 11-7-1997.

On appeal, AS No. 108 of 1999, the Subordinate Judge, Bhavani, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit on 14-11-2000. No immediate steps were taken by the Panchayat’s Executive Officer to challenge that decree. When execution proceedings commenced, a subsequent Executive Officer applied on 26-10-2004 for certified copies of the judgment and decree (issued on 15-12-2004) and filed a second appeal on 5-1-2005 together with an application to condone a delay of 1373 days.

The High Court of Madras refused to condone the delay, holding that it was not satisfactorily explained. The Panchayat appealed to the Supreme Court against that refusal.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant’s Arguments (Gram Panchayat)

The delay was occasioned by deliberate lapses of the then Executive Officer, who was later suspended for corruption on 12-7-2002.

Once the new Executive Officer became aware of the decree during execution, he acted promptly to obtain certified copies and file the appeal.

In view of larger public interest, the court should adopt a justice-oriented approach and permit the matter to be decided on merits despite the long delay.

No detailed arguments from the first respondent are recorded in the opinion.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao (2005) 3 SCC 752	The court must take a justice-oriented, liberal view when considering applications for condonation of delay, particularly where public officials’ lapses threaten to defeat justice.	The Supreme Court invoked this principle to justify condoning a 1373-day delay, emphasising that public interest warranted a decision on merits.

Precedent

Rule or Principle Cited For

Application by the Court

State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao (2005) 3 SCC 752

The court must take a justice-oriented, liberal view when considering applications for condonation of delay, particularly where public officials’ lapses threaten to defeat justice.

The Supreme Court invoked this principle to justify condoning a 1373-day delay, emphasising that public interest warranted a decision on merits.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

After reviewing the record and the additional affidavit dated 12-12-2006, the Supreme Court found that the bulk of the delay stemmed from “deliberate lapses” by the Executive Officer who was later suspended. Because the Panchayat itself moved expeditiously once it learned of the decree, the blame could not be placed on the litigant body as such.

Applying the principle in State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao, the Court stressed that a justice-centred approach should prevail where official inaction threatens to defeat adjudication on the merits. Even a “huge” delay may be excused to serve the larger public interest. The relatively short interval between receipt of certified copies (15-12-2004) and filing of the appeal (5-1-2005) was held inconsequential given the overall circumstances.

Accordingly, the Court concluded that the explanation for delay was adequate and that refusal to condone would unjustly deprive the Panchayat of a hearing on the merits of its second appeal.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, condoned the entire delay of 1373 days, and remitted the second appeal to the High Court for disposal according to law. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.

Implications: The Panchayat’s second appeal will now be heard on merits. The decision reinforces the liberal, justice-oriented standard for condonation of delay where public bodies are affected by the negligent or corrupt conduct of their officials; however, it does not establish new legal doctrine beyond applying the existing principle from Lipok Ao.

Executive Officer, Antiyur Town Panchayat v. G. Arumugam (Dead) By Legal Representatives .

Kurian Joseph, J.— The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the High Court declining to condone the delay of 1373 days in filing the appeal against the judgment dated 14-11-2000 in AS No. 108 of 1999 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Bhavani, Erode District, Tamil Nadu. The first respondent herein filed OS No. 267 of 1992 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Bhavani, Tamil Nadu for declaration and possession of the suit land. The Gram Panchayat, defendant in the suit, contended that the suit land is natham poramboke and the possession and records of title are in the name of the Panchayat. The trial court dismissed the suit by judgment dated 11-7-1997. The complainant, first respondent herein, filed first appeal as AS No. 108 of 1999. The appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed by judgment dated 14-11-2000.

2. It appears, no steps were taken by the Executive Officer of the Panchayat at the relevant time. When the Executive Officer, at the time of filing the second appeal, came to know of the proceedings when steps for eviction were taken in execution, he immediately took steps and filed an application on 26-10-2004 for certified copy of the judgment and decree. The same were issued on 15-12-2004, and after obtaining the necessary sanction and on completing the other procedural formalities, the second appeal was filed on 5-1-2005 along with application for condonation of delay. By the impugned order, the High Court declined to condone the delay. According to the High Court, the delay is not properly explained. It is also observed in the impugned order that though the certified copies were issued on 15-12-2004, the second appeal is filed only on 5-1-2005 and that there is no explanation even for that delay.

3. In the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant on 12-12-2006, it is brought to the notice of this Court that Shri K.G Ramasamy, who was working as Executive Officer of the Panchayat at the relevant time was suspended from service w.e.f 12-7-2002 on allegations of corruption. Be that as it may, after going through the records and after hearing the counsel on both sides, we are satisfied that the delay occasioned only on account of the deliberate lapses on the part of the Executive Officer of the Panchayat at the relevant time. Who else are involved in the process, is not quite clear.

4. As held by this Court in State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao 2005 3 SCC 752, the court must always take a justice-oriented approach while considering an application for condonation of delay. If the court is convinced that there had been an attempt on the part of the government officials or public servants to defeat justice by causing delay, the court, in view of the larger public interest, should take a lenient view in such situations, condone the delay, howsoever huge may be the delay, and have the matter decided on merits.

5. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and condone the delay of 1373 days in filing the second appeal. The case is remitted to the High Court for further consideration in accordance with law. Interlocutory Application No. 2 of 2014 is accordingly disposed of.

6. The appeal is allowed as above. There is no order as to costs.

Civil Appeal No. 8577 Of 2014 With Ia No. 2 Of 2014

Executive Officer, Antiyur Town Panchayat v. G. Arumugam (Dead) By Legal Representatives .

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant’s Arguments (Gram Panchayat)

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Executive Officer, Antiyur Town Panchayat v. G. Arumugam (Dead) By Legal Representatives .

Comments