1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2917 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.4798 OF 2008 The Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Tapi Project, Hatnur-I & anr. ... APPLICANTS VERSUS Shri Purushottam Jgannath Sonawane ... RESPONDENT ----- Shri K.B. Choudhari, A.G.P. for the applicants Shri B.K. Pawar, Advocate holding for Shri A.B. Kale, Advocate for the respondent ----- CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 7th September, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Perused. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The applicants have preferred the present application for condonation of delay of 252 days occurred in filing the accompanying First Appeal under Stamp No.4798/2008, assailing the judgment and award passed in L.A.R. No.73/2006, by learned Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon on 16.11.2006. 2 3. The applicants submit that, after passing the judgment and order on 16.11.2006, the applicants applied for certified copies thereof on 4.12.2006 which were ready on 2.3.2007 and same were collected on 4.4.2007 and the same were submitted to the Government Pleader’s office on 25.8.2007 by the concerned Department. The Law & Judiciary Department sanctioned the proposal and forwarded the proposal to the office on Government Pleader on 28.5.2007 and the office of Government Pleader received the proposal on 29.5.2007. The Government Pleader’s office assigned the First Appeal for drafting to concerned A.G.P. on 29.7.2007. Thereafter the appeal was drafted by the concerned A.G.P. and thereafter letter was sent to the concerned Department for want of certified copy of judgment and award/ decree, typed copy of judgment and award/ decree and difference chart and other documents on 12.6.2007 and same were submitted on 25.6.2007. The difference chart and court fees have been prepared and submitted to the office of Government Pleader on 21.11.2007 and thereafter the accompanying First Appeal came tobe filed on 28.2.2008. 4. Hence, the applicants submit that, the delay caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal is not intentional and deliberate and same occurred due to administrative grounds and 3 procedural aspects and hence, the applicants pray that the said delay of 252 days be condoned in the interest of justice. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent opposed the present application vehemently and submitted that the applicants have not explained the delay occurred in filing the accompanying First Appeal properly. It is submitted that the delay caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal is inordinate and administrative grounds and official hassle is no ground for condoning the delay. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the ratio laid down and observations made in the case reported at 2008(6) Mh.L.J. 239 (State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Vithu Kalya Govari and others), and also relied upon the ratio laid down and observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case reported at 2008(6) ALT 38(SC) (Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by L.Rs. Vs. Exe. Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project and Anr.). Accordingly, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits and, therefore, same may kindly be rejected. 6. Considering the rival submissions, at the outset, although the impugned judgment and order was passed on 16.11.2006, the applicants applied for certified copies thereof after the delay of about 20 days and no reason has been put forth 4 therefor. Moreover, although the certified copies were ready for delivery on 2.3.2007, same were collected by the applicants after the lapse of about 2 months i.e. on 4.4.2007 and no explanation has been given by the applicants therefore. Moreover, although the matter was sent to the office of Government Pleader on 29.5.2007 for drafting, the application is silent when the concerned A.G.P. drafted the accompanying First Appeal. Apart from that, it appears that the accompanying First Appeal came to be filed on 28.2.2008 and no explanation has been given for the delay from 29.5.2007 i.e. the date of assigning the matter for drafting to the concerned A.G.P. till 28.2.2008 i.e. the date on which the accompanying First Appeal came to be filed. Hence, it is apparently clear that the applicants have failed to explain the delay at the various stages as aforesaid, properly. 7. Moreover, it is apparent that there is laxity on the part of the applicants at every stage in view of the foregoing account and official hassle and procedural aspects and administrative grounds cannot be the ground for condoning the delay and reliance can be very well placed on the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court, headed by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice in the judgment reported at 2008(6) Mh.L.J. 239 (State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Vithu Kalya Govari and others), (supra) in which it has been held as under : 5 “ The public authority or a department is not expected to be negligent or to take no action for years and let the matters become barred by time surely because of its negligence and inaction. The applicants in their application have stated that delay occurred because of “official hassle” and approval at different levels. This can hardly justify condonation of delay. In law advantage has accrued to the non-applicants claimants and the same ought not to be withdrawn in a mechanical manner and that too without any sufficient cause being shown by the applicants. Despite, awards/ judgments of the Courts, which have attained finality, the claimants are not permitted to receive compensation that itself would be a sufficient prejudice to their rights. Before the delay can be condoned and claimants can be subjected to a prolonged litigation, the onus to show sufficient cause lies upon the applicant State. For the reason that the applicants have failed to show sufficient or reasonable cause (in fact they have shown no cause) for the condonation of delay, it is declined.” 8. Moreover, recently the Apex Court, in the case reported at 2008(6) ALT 38(SC) (Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by L.Rs. Vs. Exe. Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project and Anr.) (supra), by judgment dated 3.11.2008, held that it is the duty of the applicants though they are Government authorities, to explain the delay with cogent reasons and reliance can be very much placed on the 6 observations made in paragraph No.24 thereof which reads as under : “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 clearly at cross purposes with it. In a given case if any such facts are pleaded or provided 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 sugget 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.”. 9. In the circumstances, the aforesaid observations are self explicit and hence, applying the parameters of the aforesaid observations in the instant case, it is apparent that the present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits 7 and hence, same tobe rejected and same stands rejected accordingly. 10. Since the present Civil Application for condonation of delay is rejected, nothing survives in First Appeal Stamp No. 4798/2008 and, therefore, registration thereof is refused. [SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] fmp/ca2917.08