ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has observed that unconvincing justifications for administrative delays have become a recurring trend, consistently pleaded in nearly every case.
This observation came as a three-member bench of the apex court issued its judgement in the case titled Province of Sindh through Land Acquisition Officer vs Abdul Tawab and others. The bench was headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, and comprised Justice Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi. The Government of Sindh, through its Land Acquisition Officer, had challenged a judgement dated February 28, 2002. That judgement was passed by the referee court (Additional District Judge, Sukkur) in Land Acquisition Reference/Suit No. 13 of 1989. The referee court had ruled in favour of the private respondents and increased the amount of compensation. The Supreme Court heard the appeal on June 13, 2025.
In a four-page judgement authored by Justice Mazhar, the court noted: “The mechanical and unpersuasive justification of administrative delays has almost become a trend, consistently pleaded for condonation of delay through stereotypical and generalised applications. In our view, such reasons cannot be considered a ‘sufficient cause’ or a reasonable ground in every case.” The court found no lawful justification to interfere in the matter. It dismissed the appeal, not only on merits but also for being time-barred. The judgement noted that the Additional Advocate General (AAG) for Sindh had argued that both the referee court and the High Court failed to consider certain documents and evidence when enhancing the compensation. However, when the bench questioned the AAG about the appeal being barred by 30 days, he referred to an application for condonation of delay (CMA No. 654-K/2022).
Regarding the merits, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had properly considered the referee court’s judgement. That judgement, dated February 28, 2002, took into account all necessary elements for deciding a land acquisition reference. The court further observed that appeals filed by the federal and provincial governments, as well as autonomous bodies, often come after the statutory limitation period has expired. The standard excuse is that the time was consumed in completing inter-departmental procedures or seeking instructions from higher authorities. “Seemingly, applications for condonation of delay are being filed as a routine matter, while adopting a callous approach,” the court said. “This fails to recognise that delay cannot be condoned without the presence of sufficient cause, or without explaining the delay of each and every day.”
The judgement added that this careless approach at times appears mala fide. It creates the impression that appeals are deliberately filed late as a formality, possibly to benefit the opposing party, rather than to genuinely challenge a verdict. The court acknowledged that, while the law prefers adjudication on merit, it must not overlook another vital principle — the law helps the vigilant, not the indolent. It quoted the Latin maxim: “The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights.” The bench noted that delayed legal remedies may justifiably be denied. The principle of equality before the law requires that all litigants, including the State, receive equal treatment and that the law be applied fairly.
The court emphasised that it is the inherent duty of the judiciary to examine whether a case is within the prescribed time limit, regardless of whether limitation is raised as an issue. “Carelessness, intentional or obvious sluggishness, or lack of bona fide, are no grounds for condoning delay,” the court stated. It found that the civil appeal was delayed by 30 days, and the condonation application did not provide any valid reason for the delay. The only explanation offered was that the appellant’s representative had approached the AAG’s office in Sukkur for certified copies of the judgement and memo of appeal. These were then delivered to the appellant, and the matter was assigned to the Advocate on Record (AOR). However, the court noted: “No explanation was offered as to why the matter was delayed, or who was responsible for the delay.”
It concluded that limitation cannot be taken lightly or ignored. If a person or entity wishes to file an appeal in a higher court, they must be vigilant and diligent in pursuing the remedy within the stipulated timeframe. “As a result of the above discussion, we do not find any lawful justification to cause any interference,” the judgement concluded. “Therefore, the aforesaid civil appeal, along with CMA No. 654-K/2022, is dismissed not only on merits but also being barred by time.”