Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
U.T. Of J&K And Others vs Adil Majeed Wani on 10 February, 2026
Author: Sindhu Sharma
Bench: Sindhu Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
...
CM no.2538/2024
In LPA no.101/2024
CM no.2539/2024
U.T. of J&K and others
....... Appellants(s)
Through: Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG
Versus
Adil Majeed Wani
......Respondent(s)
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE
ORDER
10.02.2026
1. Appellants have assailed the order dated August 14, 2018, passed by
the learned Writ Court in SWP no.56/2018 titled as Adil Majeed Wani
v. State and others, in an appeal, being LPA no.101/2024, which came
to be filed on May 02, 2024.
2. In challenging the order passed by the learned Writ Court, there
occurred a delay of 2028 days. Appellants have moved an application
alongside the appeal seeking condonation of delay mainly on the
ground that it took some time in fulfilling the codal formalities, coupled
with the administrative reasons in seeking opinion/clarification. Further
contention is that some delay has also occurred on account of COVID-
19 and thus the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated March 08,
2021, in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) no.03 of 2010 In Re: Cognizance
for Extension of Limitation, has directed that in computing the period
Page 1
of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period
from March 15, 2020 till March 14, 2021 shall stand excluded and
thereafter the period was extended till October 02, 2021 vide order
dated September 23, 2021 in MA no.665 of 2021. Submission of the
appellants is that all along they remained vigilant and have pursued the
matter with due diligence but because of codal formalities and on
account of COVID-19, delay has occurred.
3. Heard. Considered.
4. While going through the contents of the application, it appears that
appellants themselves are on admission that Law Department has
finally considered the matter and decided to file appeal against the
impugned order vide communication dated October 18, 2023.
5. Although we are not convinced with the explanation tendered by the
appellants explaining the delay but even going by the pleadings the final
decision to prefer appeal has been taken by the department in the year
2023 but appeal came to be filed on May 02, 2024 itself, therefore, still,
on the face of it, there is unexplained delay in filing the appeal,
notwithstanding the fact there is no explanation tendered for the delay
caused in filing the appeal, even if we exclude the COVID-10 period,
therefore, we hold that applicants have failed to explain the huge delay
of 2028 days, particularly even after getting nod from the Law
Department to file the appeal.
6. Our views are also fortified by the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Pundlik Jalam Patil (dead) by LRs v. Executive
Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and another, (2008) 17 SCC 448,
wherein it has been held by the Supreme Court that:
Page 2
“29. It needs no restatement at our hands that the object for
fixing time-limit for litigation is based on public policy fixing a
lifespan for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare.
They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory
tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in his
Jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of the
vigilant and not of the sleepy.
30. Public interest undoubtedly is a paramount consideration in
exercising the courts’ discretion wherever conferred upon it by
the relevant statutes. Pursuing stale claims and multiplicity of
proceedings in no manner subserves public interest. Prompt and
timely payment of compensation to the land losers facilitating
their rehabilitation/ resettlement is equally an integral part of
public policy. Public interest demands that the State or the
beneficiary of acquisition, as the case may be, should not be
allowed to indulge in any act to unsettle the settled legal rights
accrued in law by resorting to avoidable litigation unless the
claimants are guilty of deriving benefit to which they are
otherwise not entitled, in any fraudulent manner. One should not
forget the basic fact that what is acquired is not the land but the
livelihood of the land losers. These public interest parameters
ought to be kept in mind by the courts while exercising the
discretion dealing with the application filed under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act. Dragging the land losers to courts of law
years after the termination of legal proceedings would not serve
any public interest. Settled rights cannot be lightly interfered
with by condoning inordinate delay without there being any
proper explanation of such delay on the ground of involvement
of public revenue. It serves no public interest.”
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amalendu Kumar Bera v. State of West
Bengal, (2013) 4 SCC 52, has held:
“Merely because the Respondent is the State, delay in filing
the appeal or revision cannot and shall not be mechanically
considered and in absence of ‘sufficient cause’ delay shall not
be condoned.”
8. The tendency of the State to file appeal, revision or SLP with huge
delay without reasonable explanation has been deprecated by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Vishnu Aroma Pouching
(P.) Ltd., (2022) 9 SCC 263. The relevant paragraph of the judgment
is reproduced herein:
“3. The aforesaid itself shows the casual manner in which the
petitioner has approached this Court without any cogent or
plausible ground for condonation of delay. In fact, other than the
lethargy and incompetence of the petitioner, there is nothingPage 3
which has been put on record. We have repeatedly discouraged
State Governments and public authorities in adopting an approach
that they can walk in to the Supreme Court as and when they
please ignoring the period of limitation prescribed by the Statutes,
as if the Limitation statute does not apply to them. In this behalf,
suffice to refer to our judgment in the State of Madhya Pradesh
&Ors. v. Bheru Lal [SLP [C] Diary No.9217/2020 decided on
15.10.2020] and The State of Odisha & Ors. v. Sunanda
Mahakuda [SLP [C] Diary No.22605/2020 decided on
11.01.2021]. The leeway which was given to the Government /
public authorities on account of innate inefficiencies was the
result of certain orders of this Court which came at a time when
technology had not advanced and thus, greater indulgence was
shown. This position is no more prevalent and the current legal
position has been elucidated by the judgment of this Court in
Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors v. Living Media
India Ltd. & Anr. – (2012) 3 SCC 563. Despite this, there seems
to be a little change in the approach of the Government and public
authorities.”
9. In State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Sabha Narain and others,
reported in (2022) 9 SCC 266, there was only 502 days’ delay in filing
the petition with an explanation tendered in the application for
condonation of delay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that it
gives only a saga of moving of file from one place to the other and that
too with long interludes. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also observed
that in fact, other than lethargy and incompetence of petitioner, there is
nothing plausible which has been put on record and that the Supreme
Court has repeatedly discouraged the State Governments and public
authorities in adopting an approach that they can walk to the Court as
and when they please ignoring the period of limitation prescribed by
the Statutes as if the Limitation Statute does not apply to them. Looking
to the period of delay and casual manner in which the application had
been worded, the Hon’ble Supreme Court imposed costs on the
petitioner for wastage of judicial time.
Page 4
10.Having regard to what has been stated above and having regard to the
law laid down by the Supreme Court, the reasons given in the
application cannot be said to be sufficient, therefore, extension of time
for filing the appeal cannot be granted by condoning the delay of 2028
days as there is an unexplained delay, therefore, this application is
dismissed and as a sequel thereof the appeal is also dismissed.
(Shahzad Azeem) (Sindhu Sharma)
Judge Judge
Srinagar
10.02.2026
Ajaz Ahmad, Secy
Page 5
