(Prayer in W.M.P.No.20553 of 2025 : Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 691 days in filing the review application against order dated 08.02.2023 passed in W.P.No.3489 of 2023

In Rev.Aplw.SR.No.14145 of 2025: Petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. r/w Section 114 C.P.C. to review the order dated 08.02.2023 passed by this court in W.P.No.3489 of 2023.)

G. Arul Murugan, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 3.

2. This petition is filed to condone the delay of 691 days in filing the review application, which seeks to review the order dated 08.02.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.3489 of 2023.

3. The delay occurred has been explained in paragraph 22 of the affidavit, which reads as follows:-

                     “22. I submit that I had sincerely served as Panchayat President and got award for best village administration. I had been discharging my duty without any adverse remarks for the public welfare during the tenure of panchayat president. I am a senior citizen and have got health ailments and advised to file this review petition within a period of 30 days but I was unable to file within time due to unaware of the writ order dated 08.02.2023. I came to know about the said order during grievance meeting held on 30.12.2024 when I have approached the 1st respondent and requested to resolve my grievance. The revenue officials instructed me to set aside the order of this Hon'ble Court, failing which they will remove encroachment to avoid contempt proceedings. Further I have applied copy application to receive the order dated 08.02.2023 passed in writ petition 3489 of 2023 and received on 27.01.2025. Therefore, latches to file this review petition is neither willful nor wanton. Hence, I request this Hon'ble court to condone the delay to prefer this review petition.”

4. The issue relating to condonation of delay is no longer res integra, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has settled the legal position through a catena of decisions, of which relevant paragraphs of a few decisions are reproduced hereunder:

                     (i) In Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. V. K. Thangappan and another((2006) 4 SCC 322), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

                     “6. Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. Even where fundamental right is involved the matter is still within the discretion of the Court as pointed out in Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, (1969) 1 SCC 185. Of course, the discretion has to be exercised judicially and reasonably.”

                     (ii) Long delay cannot be allowed to be condoned as a matter of course in view of the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board(2025 INSC 1104), wherein it is held as under:

                     “258. The length of the delay is a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the respondents, 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 nondeliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, it 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 merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay.”

                     (iii) In a recent decision in Thirunagalingam v. Lingeswaran and another(2025 INSC 672), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus:

                     “31. It is a well-settled law that while considering the plea for condonation of delay, the first and foremost duty of the court is to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation rather than starting with the merits of the main matter. Only when sufficient cause or reasons given for the delay by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced or stand on equal footing, the court may consider the merits of the main matter for the purpose of condoning the delay.

                     32. Further, this Court has repeatedly emphasised in several cases that delay should not be condoned merely as an act of generosity. The pursuit of substantial justice must not come at the cost of causing prejudice to the opposing party. In the present case, the respondents/defendants have failed to demonstrate reasonable grounds of delay in pursuing the matter, and this crucial requirement for condoning the delay remains unmet.”

5. In the light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, referred supra, we find that the reasons contained in the affidavit does not constitute sufficient cause for condoning such inordinate delay. Hence, we see no valid ground to condone the delay of 691 days in filing the review application.

6. Even on the merits of the review, it is to be noted that this Court, by order dated 08.02.2023, had only recorded the submission of the state counsel and disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to conduct a survey of the land in question with the assistance of Surveyor and if any encroachment is found, the same shall be removed after issuing notice to the encroachers.

7. It is fairly stated that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, a survey was conducted and on finding encroachment, a notice came to be issued under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), followed by the final notice under Section 6 of the Act.

8. The petitioner herein, who was the 4th respondent in the writ petition, had challenged the notice issued under Section 6 of the Act by filing an appeal before the District Collector, under Section 10 of the Act and the same is pending.

9. When the order had already been acted upon and resulted in the issuance of the notice under Section 6 of the Act and the petitioner herein had also filed statutory appeal, we find nothing remains to be reviewed at this stage.

10. For the foregoing reasons, the application is dismissed. Consequently, Review Application SR is rejected. There shall be no order as to costs.