1 Civil Appln. No.17831.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.17831 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 35643 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra .. .. Appellant Versus Digamber Rama Munde and others .. .. Respondents WITH C.A.NO.17833 OF 2010 IN F.A.ST.NO.35674 OF 2010 C.A.NO.17835 OF 2010 IN F.A.ST.NO.35691 OF 2010 C.A.NO.17837 OF 2010 IN F.A.ST.NO.35668 OF 2010 C.A.NO.17839 OF 2010 IN F.A.ST.NO.35683 OF 2010 C.A.NO.17841 OF 2010 IN F.A.ST.NO.35699 OF 2010 C.A.NO.17843 OF 2010 IN F.A.ST.NO.35696 OF 2010 C.A.NO.17845 OF 2010 IN F.A.ST.NO.35687 OF 2010 C.A.NO.17847 OF 2010 IN F.A.ST.NO.35677 OF 2010 C.A.NO.17850 OF 2010 IN F.A.ST.NO.35671 OF 2010 Shri S.D.Kaldate,AGP for Applicant. CORAM : K. K. TATED, J. DATE : 23RD DECEMBER, 2010. PER COURT: . These Civil Applications are preferred by the 2 Civil Appln. No.17831.10 Appellant-State of Maharashtra for condonation of 949 days delay in preferring the appeals against the Judgment and Award dated 25th January, 2008, passed by the Reference Court in the Land Acquisition References. 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer issued notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 13-02-2003 for acquiring original claimants' land for construction of percolation tank-4 at village Jaybhachiwadi U/v Her Tq. Udgir District Latur, however, their lands were acquired for the said purpose on 20-09-2001 by private negotiations. After following due process of law, the S.L.A.O. passed award dated 31-03-2005 and awarded compensation in respect of the acquired land @ Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.1,65,000/- per hector. 3. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the S.L.A.O., respondents - original claimants preferred Reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In the said Reference, the 3 Civil Appln. No.17831.10 Reference Court awarded enhanced compensation @ Rs. 4,00,000/- per hector. 4. The learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that there was delay on the part of Law and Judiciary Department in giving immediate sanction for preferring the appeals. He further submits that the concerned Officer forwarded certified copies of the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court and typed copies thereof to the office of the Government Pleader at Aurangabad on 01-04-2010. He submits that due to non submission of certified copies of the judgment and award and typed copies thereof, it remain on their part to file present appeals within time. He further submits that delay caused in filing the appeals is not intentional but caused due to administrative difficulties and for the reasons beyond the control of them. The learned learned A.G.P. relied on Para-4 of the Civil Application, which reads as under : 4 Civil Appln. No.17831.10 "4. The applicant submit that, thereafter, the Government Pleader has allotted the said proposal alongwith other proposals for drafting appeal memo to the concerned A.G.P. on 05-04-2010. The appeal memo immediately drafted. The applicant submit that, while scrutinising the said proposal, Certified copy of Judgment and order, Difference Chart and typed copies of judgment and order, Court fees were not accompanied with the proposal, therefore, the concerned A.G.P. has communicated the authorities to forward the said copies by letter dt.--------. The applicant submit that, in response to the above communications of this office, the Certified copy and typed copies of judgment and order, and difference chart are received on , the Court fees is received on---------. However, the appeal memo itself is drafted immediately but the same could not filed in the Registry of the Hon'ble Court due to non supply 5 Civil Appln. No.17831.10 of the above stated documents. The applicant submit that, the delay caused in filing of appeal is not intentional but is caused because of administrative difficulty and for the reasons beyond the control of the concerned. The delay is caused unintentionally." 5. I have gone through the entire Civil Applications. In these Civil Applications, nowhere, they have stated when the office of the District Government Pleader applied for certified copies of the judgment and award, when they received certified copies of the judgment and award. There is no reference when the District Government Pleader forwarded his opinion to the Law and Judiciary Department for preferring the appeals. Nowhere it is stated in the Civil Applications when Law and Judiciary Department took decision to prefer these appeals. He stated that the office of Government Pleader, Aurangabad received sanction from the Law and Judiciary 6 Civil Appln. No.17831.10 Department on 01-04-2010. Though they received sanction on 01-04-2010 they filed these appeals in this Court on 30-11-2010 i.e. after seven months. Absolutely, there is no explanation of 949 days delay. 6. Certified copies of the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court shows that the District Government Pleader applied for certified copies on 30-09-2008 and same were delivered to them on 12-11-2008. 7. Our High Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Vithu Kalya Govari and others reported in 2008(5) Bom.C.R. 323, observed in Para-12 as under : "12. Before these files are consigned to record room, the Courts cannot help but notice that most of the appeals filed on behalf of the State are barred by time and the delay normally is inordinate. They suffer from defect of inordinate delay. Normally, it is 7 Civil Appln. No.17831.10 expected of the State, in the modern times and with modern amenities and infra- structure, to govern its affairs to the much expected standards. It hardly stands to reason that most of the appeals filed by the State, particularly in land acquisition matters, should be barred by time. They are filed after much delay and normally after considerable delay which remains unexplained and is ex facie unjustified. Filing of appeal within limitation is an exception but filing appeals barred by time is the rule. Filing appeal in a mechanical manner beyond the period of limitation has become a rule. This needs to be checked by the concerned authorities at the earliest. Unreasonable delay on the part of the concerned authority in completion of execution proceedings, disbursement of compensation, determination of compensation and then in filing legal proceedings include the appeals invites twin disadvantages that are opposed to public policy and even good governance. Firstly, even in good cases because of inordinate and unexplained delay, the Court may 8 Civil Appln. No.17831.10 decline to entertain the appeals. Secondly, the liability of statutory interest increases every passing day which burdens the public exchequer. Both these adverse rigors could be avoided by timely and co-ordinate actions. The authorities are required to have a more practical and pragmatic approach to provide solution to this problem. The inordinate delays occurring from inaction or non-co- operation of the departments, as is demonstrated by the facts of the present cases, needs to be corrected and it will be desirable to fix the responsibility of the erring officer/official. The concept of public accountability for default of performance of statutory and public duties relatable to the powers vested in the authorities under the Act or other administrative authorities, is squarely applicable. In the case of Mahender Kumar vs. Land Acquisition Collector (2006) 5 AD 420, the Court after discussing various judgments of the Supreme Court in great detail held that actions of administrative authorities are accountable and 9 Civil Appln. No.17831.10 doctrine of full pay and credit is applicable in discharge of their duties. Their actions, besides being open to judicial review, would attract judicial chasticism if there is complete negligence and non-cooperation in functioning of the authority merely in furtherance to statutory powers. The doctrine of public accountability would require authorities to act timely and be responsible for their acts. Development of law which has even extended to which the State is liable to compensate for loss or injury suffered by a citizen due to arbitrary action of employees of the State. Reference can be made to the case of Lucknow Development Authority vs. M. K. Gupta, (1994) I SCC 243. In the case in hand, we have already noticed that there is not even an iota of explanation rendered for complete non- cooperation and inordinate delay of more than two years. In fact, in one case, there is not even an indication as to what steps were taken with effect from 29th June 2005 to 3rd March 2007 i.e. for nearly two years in C.A. No. 3200 of 2007 while with effect from 10 Civil Appln. No.17831.10 24th June 2005 to 15th May 2007 in C.A. No. 5422 of 2008, there is not even an averment in that action or step was taken by any concerned authority during this long period which ultimately resulted in delay of more than 2 years and 45 days in filing of these appeals. Somebody has to own this responsibility. It is expected of the competent authority to fix responsibility of the erring officer/officials and to provide proper guidelines. Thus, while dismissing these Civil Applications/ Appeals, we feel duty bound to issue certain directions to the Respondent State. Thus, the following directions are issued : (a) The State Government shall constitute a Committee presided over by the Chief Secretary of the State, which shall issue guidelines to ensure that appeals on behalf of the State in land acquisition matters are filed within the prescribed period of limitation. (b) Under the directions/guidelines issued through appropriate Government 11 Civil Appln. No.17831.10 Resolution, complete time frame should be provided for applying and/or receiving certified copies, preparation of appeals, sanctioning of requisite funds, drawing up and filing of appeals. (c) These guidelines should also provide for due co-operation and co-ordination between different Departments of the State Government. (d) Concerned authorities may also examine constituting a `centralised nodal office' to ensure timely filing of appeals in the High Court so as to avoid any consequences adverse to the interest of the State including burdening the public exchequer. (e) The guidelines so framed shall also introduce the principle of public accountability and answerability for inaction/action of various authorities in the State hierarchy in such cases and for inordinate delay in filing the present cases, the State Government shall fix responsibility and take action in accordance with law. " 12 Civil Appln. No.17831.10 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned A.G.P. and after considering the averments made by the applicants in their civil Applications, I am of the opinion that the applicants failed to disclose sufficient cause for condonation of 949 days delay in preferring the appeals. 9. Civil Applications are dismissed. No order as to costs. sd/- [K. K. TATED, J.] sut/DEC10/ca17831.10