Supreme Court: Government cannot lose rights due to official negligence or errors

The Supreme Court has ruled that the interest of the state cannot suffer for the acts of omission or commission of its officers as it refused to interfere with the Madras High Court's order condoning the delay filed by state authorities in respect of a land dispute.

The bench felt that the matter was required to be examined by the High Court after giving full opportunity to the petitioner.

Though counsel for the petitioner is correct that there is inordinate and unexplained delay and the impugned order does not go into the merits of the delay, the court felt that delay and condonation thereof is a matter on which there cannot be too much of an explanation or justification given the fact that dates are not in dispute with regard to sequence of events. Only a pragmatic view is to be taken by the court as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and the consequences it would ultimately have on the dispute concerned, such condonation is required.

The petitioner was aggrieved by the condonation of delay by the High Court with regard to filing of the review petition by the district collector, Madurai against the order of the High Court of August 24, 2007.

The petitioner submitted that the land in question was settled with the predecessor in interest of the petitioner's vendor in the year 1950 and was dealt with in various ways.

However, in 2008 when Patta was denied in favor of the predecessor in interest of the vendor, they moved in writ petition before the High Court, in which a direction was issued to issue a patta in the year 2008. The same being complied with, third party rights were also created.

With regard to the issuance of Patta, a suit was filed for declaration of title and permanent injunction by the predecessor in interest, vendor of the petitioner, which was decreed in favor of petitioner's vendor by the trial court upon contest.

The First Appeal and the Second Appeal before the High Court were dismissed.

However, the district collector filed a review petition initially within time, but the same was somehow not taken up by the High Court and the records also could not be traced. A fresh review petition was filed on August 31, 2012 along with an application for condonation of delay. The same also could not be taken up and finally, through the impugned order, the delay has been condoned.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of the High Court was absolutely without any application of mind, as delay being of almost 17 years altogether, there was absolutely no case made out, especially when concurrently three courts have held in favor of the petitioner or predecessor in interest of his vendors.

Counsel also contended that third party rights having been created and there being no objection from any private person, and also the state not having the records with regard to the settlement made originally in the year 1950, the matter needs to be finally given closure and the court may set aside the impugned order condoning the delay.

He also submitted that in the review petition, the petitioner was not made a party and therefore could not contest at the time of hearing of the petition for condonation of delay, which has caused serious prejudice to his rights as his vendors having no interest could not be expected to defend it in the manner required.

Counsel for the district collector submitted that the land in the records of the state was never settled in favor of the original person in the year 1950, as no records are available. However, it was contended that there were subsequent revenue entries to show the entry of the names of the predecessor in interest of the vendor of the petitioner.

It was contended that because the matter could not be dealt with in the manner it was required, and the land being state land, that too a water body, it is in the general interest of the state and the public that one opportunity be given to finally thrash out the issue.

Having considered the matter from various angles, the bench found that the issue is required to be gone into on merits.

In the present case, the court noted there is a categorical stand taken by the then collector of the district that the matter was not properly handled and did not come to the notice of the authorities concerned to pursue it.

The court stated it was not inclined to go into the finer details with regard to the sequence of events. Accordingly, taking a holistic and overall view in the matter, the petition stands disposed of without interfering in the order impugned with an observation that in the review petition, the petitioner shall also be made a party and shall be heard on merits by the High Court.

As the matter is old, the bench requested the High Court to conclude the hearing within six months.

Case details: Vinod Gandhi vs The District Collector, Madurai & Ors, decided by a bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan on January 22, 2026