ca6509.17 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 915 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6509 OF 2017 IN FAST/8623/2017 WITH CA/8952/2018 IN FAST/8623/2017 WITH CA/6511/2017 IN FAST/8600/2017 WITH CA/6513/2017 IN FAST/8616/2017 THE EX. ENGINEER, KRISHNA MARATHWADA CONSTRUCTION DIVISION NO. 1 OSMANABAD M. R. VERSUS CHANDRABHAGABAI RAOSAHEB PATIL AND ANR Advocate for Applicant : Mr. [ENTITY] C. AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. [ENTITY] Advocate for Respondents : Mr. [ENTITY], Mr. [ENTITY] and Mr. [ENTITY] CORAM : [ENTITY], J. DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 21.8.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE ORDER : 27.8.2018 O R D E R :
Heard Mr. [ENTITY], learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. [ENTITY], Mr. [ENTITY] and Mr. [ENTITY], learned counsel for respective respondents.
2. By filling these Civil Applications, the applicants have sought condonation of delay in instituting the appeals against the judgment and award, passed by the Reference Court, enhancing the compensation ca6509.17 awarded to the respondents (original claimants). The required particulars for deciding these Applications are given as under : -
Date of Date of Date of C.A. L.A.R. Date of application receipt of filing Civil Delay No. No. decision for certified certified Application (days) copy copy and Appeal 6509 495 of of 26.11.2012 15.11.2014 02/12/14 15.3.2017 1480 2017 1991 6511 489 of of 31.10.2012 19.9.2015 29.9.2015 15.3.2017 1506 2017 1991 6513 21 of of 03.12.12 23.12.2014 03.01.15 15.3.2017 1473 2017 1998
3. In all these Applications, condonation of delay has been sought on identical grounds. Therefore, these Applications are disposed of by this common order.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant no.1 is a Statutory Corporate Body and applicant nos.2 and 3 are the State Government Authorities. He submits that after decision of Land Reference, legal opinion for filing of appeals is to be sought from the concerned advocate, who represented the applicants in Land Reference matters and thereafter necessary sanction and approval is to be obtained at different levels, and therefore, the delay in filing of appeals needs to be condoned by taking liberal view. He submits that the project undertaken by the applicants is quite old one and the budgetary allocation stood exhausted. Therefore, special budgetary provision was required to be made for purchasing court fee and other expenses for filing appeals. He further ca6509.17 submits that for completing this entire procedure, certainly time was required, and therefore, the delay occurred in filing appeals, being unintentional, deserves to be condoned. He placed reliance on [PRECEDENT], wherein the Apex Court took view that :
" 5. The expression 'sufficient cause' in [SECTION] of the [ACT] must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deli berate inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of the delay.
6. (i) The law of limitation is, no doubt, the same for private citizen as for Governmental-authorities.
Government, like any other. litigant must take responsibility for the acts or omissions of its officers. But a somewhat different complexion is imparted to the matter where Government makes out a case where public interest was shown to have suffered owing to acts of fraud or bad faith on the part of its officers or agents and where the officers were clearly at cross purposes with it.
(ii) If appeals brought by Government are lost for such default, no person is individually affected; but what, in the ultimate analysis, suffers is public interest.
5. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the present matters, since inception, the applicants authorities acted in gross negligent and reckless manner. He submits that in every matter, ca6509.17 after decision of the Land Reference, even the application for certified copy was filed after near about 1 to 2 years and no explanation has been given by the applicants for such inordinate delay for submitting application for certified copy of the judgment and award. He further submits that applicant nos. 2 and 3 being Government Authorities, for submitting application for certified copy, inadequate funds or money, cannot be a ground for delay in applying for certified copy. His next submission is that only because applicant no.1 is a statutory corporate body and applicant nos. 2 and 3 are the Government Authorities, it does not mean that the provisions of [SECTION] of the [ACT] are made applicable in different manner than ordinary persons. Sum and substance of argument of learned counsel for the respondents is that no special latitude can be shown to the applicants statutory corporate body or the Government Authorities when "sufficient cause" has not been substantiated by the applicants even in their pleadings.
6. No doubt, in the case of [PRECEDENT] (supra), the Apex Court ruled that the explanation "sufficient cause" in [SECTION] of the [ACT] must be liberally construed so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring the appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of delay.
ca6509.17
7. In [PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that though some latitude has to be shown to the Government in deciding the question of delay, that does not give a licence to the officers of the Government to shirk their responsibility to act with reasonable expedition.
8. In [PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that an application for condonation of delay should be drafted with careful concern and not in a haphazard manner harbouring the notion that the courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that an application for condonation of delay should not be dealt with in a routine manner on the basis of individual philosophy which is basically subjective. The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a nonserious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a nonchalant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters.
9. In [PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to condone the delay of 427 days in filing the special leave petition by observing that department cannot take advantage of various ca6509.17 earlier decisions where a very liberal approach was adopted when it came to condone delay on the part of Government agencies. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government. It is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red- tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government department. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay.
10. In [PRECEDENT] the Hon'ble Supreme Court went on to observe that the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect ca6509.17 that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the "sufficient cause"
which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature.
11. The Division Bench of this Court in [PRECEDENT]., reported in [2008(6) Mh.L.J.239] has observed that the State is not expected to be negligent or to take no action for years and let the matters become time barred on account of its negligence and inaction. The usual reason of "official hassle"
or "approval at different levels" is hardly sufficient to justify condonation of delay of about two years. In law, advantage has accrued to the non- applicants claimants and the same cannot be withdrawn in a mechanical manner and that too without any sufficient cause being shown by the ca6509.17 applicants. Despite, awards/judgments of the Courts, which have attained finality, the claimants are not permitted to receive compensation in respect of their lands, which came to be compulsorily acquired, is itself, sufficient prejudice to them. Therefore, before any delay can be condoned and the claimants subjected to further prolonged litigation, the onus to show sufficient cause lies upon the applicant State.
12. In [PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that pursing stale claims and multiplicity of proceedings in no manner subserves public interest. These public interest parameters ought to be kept in mind by the courts while exercising the discretion dealing with the application filed under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. Dragging the landlosers 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. This serves no public interest. Though, the State or its instrumentalities seeking condonation of delay may be entitled to certain amount of latitude but the law of limitation is same for citizens and for governmental authorities. It would be a different matter where the Government makes out a case where public interest was shown to have suffered owing to acts of fraud or collusion on the part of its officers or agents and where the officers were clearly at cross purposes with it. In a given case, if any, such facts are pleaded and proved they ca6509.17 cannot be excluded from consideration. In cases with which we are concerned, no such facts have been either pleaded or proved.
13. Applying the above principles to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it reveals that (1) in [CASE NUMBER], award was passed on 26.11.2012, application for certified copy was submitted on 15.11.2014 and copy was received on 2.12.2014, however appeal was filed on 15.3.2017. Thus there is delay of 1480 days in filling appeal; (2) in [CASE NUMBER], award was passed on 31.10.2012, application for certified copy was submitted on 19.09.2015 and copy was received on 29.9.2015, however appeal was filed on 15.3.2017. Thus there is delay of 1506 days in filling appeal; and (3) in [CASE NUMBER], award was passed on 3.12.2012, application for certified copy was submitted on 23.12.2014 and copy was received on . 3.1.2015, however appeal was filed on 15.3.2017. Thus there is delay of 1473 days in filling appeal.
14. Thus, it becomes clear that even for applying the certified copy in every matter there is delay of about 1 to 2 years. The applicants were represented before the Reference Court by panel advocate or the Assistant Government Pleader. Therefore, there was no reason for causing such inordinate delay even in applying for certified copy of the judgment and award. Even the applicants have not fastened any charge of negligence on the part of the Government Pleader or the panel advocate. No ground is assigned by the applicants in the Application or in ca6509.17 the arguments submitted before this Court, furnishing acceptable explanation for this inordinate delay in applying for certified copy. Thus, at the threshold, the claim of the applicants for condonation of delay suffers from gross negligence and deliberate inaction on the part of the statutory corporate body and the Government authorities. As ruled by the Apex Court in [PRECEDENT] (supra) no special parameters can be made applicable to the Government authorities while considering the question of condonation of delay.
15. Even time required for obtaining approval from different authorities and time required for making provision for the funds for purchasing court fee cannot be a ground to condone the delay of near about four years, when all the Government authorities are well aware regarding the date of decision of the Land Reference and when they were represented by the competent panel advocate and the Government Pleader. The pleadings of the applicants are absolutely vague regarding the particulars of date when the applicants applied for approval or for allocation of funds and the date on which the approval was granted and funds were sanctioned. Thus, the pleadings suffer from absolute vagueness regarding ground for condonation of delay.
16. Thus, applying the above said principles laid down by the Apex Court in above referred authority, to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is clear that no "sufficient cause" has been shown by the applicants for condonation of delay of about 4 years in institution of the ca6509.17 appeals. [CASE NUMBER] in [CASE NUMBER] is filed by the applicants/original claimants for withdrawal of the amount of compensation. The same deserves to be allowed.
17. Thus, [CASE NUMBER], therefore, are liable to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a consequence of dismissal of Civil Applications, the First Appeals also stand disposed of. [CASE NUMBER] in [CASE NUMBER] is allowed.
([ENTITY], J.) dbm