Law Applies Equally To State And Private Parties; No Delay Condonation Benefit For Government: Allahabad High Court
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Allahabad Division Bench of Justice Neeraj Tiwari and Justice Vivek Kumar Singh declined to condone a delay of 5,743 days in filing a State review petition and, as a result, dismissed the review itself. The court found that the explanation offered was not sufficient to justify reopening an earlier decision in favour of a private party concerning land records and the claimed benefit of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal regime, including a direction to reflect the private party’s name in place of the State in revenue entries. It observed that government departments are expected to act with diligence, including approaching courts within limitation, and that delay condonation cannot operate as a routine advantage for the State since the law applies equally to public authorities and private litigants.
The State of Uttar Pradesh filed a review application seeking reconsideration of a judgment dated 13.11.2009 passed in a writ petition instituted by Mohan Lal. The writ petition had sought a direction for deletion of the State’s name from revenue records and mutation of the petitioner’s name, claiming entitlement under Section 3 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. The writ petition was allowed by the High Court, holding that the petitioner’s land could not be treated as vacant land under the Repeal Act.
The judgment under review was challenged by the State before the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition filed with a delay of 1633 days. The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition on 03.05.2024 on the ground of delay and also examined the matter on merits. Thereafter, the State filed the present review petition with a delay of 5743 days from the date of the judgment sought to be reviewed, and approximately 489 days from the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition.
In support of the delay condonation application, the State relied on administrative processes, movement of files, and receipt of legal opinion. The opposite party contested the application, contending that no sufficient cause had been shown to justify such prolonged delay.
The Bench recorded that “there is a delay of 5743 days in filing the review application from the date of judgment under review.” It further noted that the judgment had already been subjected to challenge before the Supreme Court, where “the huge delay of 1633 days in filing the petition was not condoned.”
While examining the explanation offered by the State, the Court stated that “the delay has not been satisfactorily explained,” and observed that the facts reflected “unjustifiable laches and callousness on the part of the State.” The Court recorded that the affidavit primarily referred to administrative steps such as preparation of office notes, seeking legal opinion, and internal approvals.
The Bench observed that such explanations reflected “proverbial bureaucratic red tapism wherein the Review Petitioners-State has attempted to take shelter in the usual functioning of the administrative machinery.” Referring to multiple Supreme Court decisions, the Court stated that the law of limitation binds the State in the same manner as private litigants and that delay cannot be condoned as a matter of course.
The Court quoted Supreme Court observations cautioning that “the claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology… cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available.” It further recorded that “condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the Government.”
On the issue of repeated litigation, the Bench observed that once the Supreme Court had dismissed the Special Leave Petition on the ground of delay, “the same period cannot be reconsidered by this Court for condoning the delay.” The Court recorded that allowing the review would amount to indirectly reviewing the Supreme Court’s order, which was impermissible.
The Bench concluded that the State’s conduct reflected “gross negligence and inaction,” and that the explanation furnished “cannot be said to be sufficient in view of the law laid by Hon’ble Apex Court.”
The Court directed: “the delay condonation application is rejected. Consequently, the Review Petition is also dismissed as we have refused to condone the delay in filing this Review Petition.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Shri Mohan Srivastava, Standing Counsel
For the Respondent: Shri R.K. Ojha, Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri Santosh Kumar Pandey, Advocate
Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh and Another v. Mohan Lal
Neutral Citation: 2025: AHC:224495-DB
Case Number: Civil Misc. Review Application Defective No. 99 of 2025
Bench: Justice Neeraj Tiwari, Justice Vivek Kumar Singh
