No Free Pass For Government Delays, Says Indore High Court After State’s 6-Year-Late Appeal In Dhar Land Dispute Rejected

Indore (Madhya Pradesh): Sending a strong message against bureaucratic negligence, the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside a district court order that had excused a delay of over six years by the State government in filing a first appeal.

Justice Vinay Saraf allowed a civil revision petition filed by Brajesh Singh and others, ruling that the State machinery cannot claim preferential treatment or immunity from statutory limitation periods due to administrative laxity.

The legal battle stems from a civil suit over a 0.089-hectare land parcel in Kod village, Dhar district. On Jan 18, 2017, a Badnawar trial court ruled in favour of the petitioners. It declared them entitled to mutate their names over the land in place of Shri Krishna Mandir — managed by the Collector — and granted a permanent injunction. The judgment was passed in the presence of the government’s legal representative.

Despite being aware of the order, State authorities remained inactive until the petitioners initiated execution proceedings years later. After receiving notice in March 2022, the State applied for a certified copy in November 2022 and eventually filed a first appeal along with a delay condonation application on March 17, 2023 — a gap of six years and two months.

On Aug 2, 2024, the Dhar District Judge condoned the delay, reasoning primarily that government land was involved. The petitioners challenged this before the High Court, where advocate Arvindra Shreekrishna Gokhale argued that the State offered no day-to-day explanation for the massive gap.

He stressed that inter-departmental correspondence does not constitute “sufficient cause”, citing Supreme Court precedents that limitation laws apply equally to the State and private citizens. The State argued that delays occurred while securing sanctions and that valuable public land was at stake.

Rejecting the State's defence, Justice Saraf noted the complete lack of justification for the inaction between January 2017 and November 2022. Citing Supreme Court jurisprudence, the High Court held that administrative lethargy cannot serve as a valid ground to reopen settled rights.

The court emphasised that judiciary forums cannot act as surrogates for State laxity or allow government bodies to litigate at their leisure.

Concluding that the lower court erred in mechanically condoning the delay, the High Court set aside the August 2024 order and dismissed both the condonation application and the State's appeal.