1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CAF No. 795 of 2009 The State of Maharashtra v. Rajesh and anr -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr K.S. Dhote, AGP for apploicant Mr Anand Parchure, Adv for respdts ‘ Coram : A.P. Bhangale, J Dated :4th Nov 2009 1. Heard both the counsel at length. Applicant-State is seeking condonation of delay of 626 days caused in filing first appeal. Impugned judgment was delivered on 4.12.2004 and communication was received from the AGP to the office of Land Acquisition Officer, Buldana on 6.1.2005. It is then stated in the application that LAO received sanction from the Joint Secretary, L & JD vide communication dated 15.3.2005. Application for grant of certified copy was made by AGP on 15.3.2005 and certified copies were received on 18.5.2005. It is submitted in the application that for these reasons, appeal could not be filed in time. 2. Affidavit in support of the application for 2 condonation of delay was sworn in by one Ramesh Giri, Special Land Acquisition Officer at Buldana on 31.8.2005 whereas the application was presented in the Registry on 2.12.2006. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that there is no explanation as to why Special Land Acquisition Officer was required to wait for communication from the AGP which was allegedly received on 6.1.2005 after the impugned judgment was delivered on 4.12.2004. It is not understood as to why certified copy was not immediately obtained and why it was obtained only after receiving sanction from Joint Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department. There is no explanation as to why appeal was not preferred immediately after 18.5.2005 on obtaining certified copies. Negligence and lethargy on the part of concerned officials is writ large inasmuch as affidavit was sworn in on 31.8.2005 and application for condonation of delay was put up on 2.12.2005 after a period of three months. 4. Award granting compensation to respondents-land losers is sought to be challenged after a period of about two years. The Apex Court in Pundlik Jalam Patil v. The Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and anr reported in 2008 (6) ALL MR 954 (SC) has observed thus - “23. 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 3 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 restoring to avoidable litigation unless the claimants are guilty of deriving benefit which otherwise not entitled in law 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 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. 24. It is true when the State and its instrumentalities are the applicants seeking condonation of delay they may be entitled to certain amount of latitude but the law of limitation is same for citizen and for Governmental authorities. Limitation Act does not provide for a different period to the Government in filing appeals or applications as such. 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 4 clearly at cross purposes with it. In a given case if any such facts are pleaded or proved they cannot be excluded from consideration and those factors may go into the judicial verdict. In the present case, no such facts are pleaded and proved though a feeble attempt by the learned counsel for the respondent was made to suggest collusion and fraud but without any basis. We cannot entertain the submission made across the Bar without there being any proper foundation in the pleadings.” 5. Since there is no explanation at all after 18.5.2005 muchless satisfactory one and during earlier period also, the conduct of authorities was negligent, application for condonation of delay deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. Judge. Hsj