1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9496 OF 2006 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.19349 OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra ... APPLICANT VERSUS Raosaheb Nivruti Pawar & ors. ... RESPONDENTS ----- Shri K.J. Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for the applicant Shri A.M. Hajare, Advocate holding for Shri A.B. Kale, Advocate for respondent Nos.2, 3, 4 & 6 None for respondent No.1 in spite of service. Application against respondent No.5 is already dismissed. ----- CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 7th November, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Perused. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The applicant/ State has preferred the present application for condonation of delay of 611 days in filing the accompanying First Appeal challenging the judgment and award 2 dated 25.10.2004, passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur in Land Acquisition Reference No.63/1992, awarding the compensation amount of Rs.1,62,720/- with interest thereon to the original claimants. 3. The applicant submits that, after passing the said impugned judgment and order on 25.10.2004, the applicant applied for certified copy thereof on 12.2.2005 and same were ready for delivery on 15.2.2005, but applicant collected the said copies on 16.4.2005 and submitted the proposal to Law & Judiciary Department for sanction to the office of District Government Pleader. Accordingly Law & Judiciary Department sanctioned the proposal and forwarded the same to the office of Government Pleader on 14.1.2005. Thereafter, Government Pleader office assigned the said matter for drafting the First Appeal to A.G.P. on 14.1.2005, who drafted the same and the accompanying First Appeal came to be filed on 25.9.2006, which resulted into delay of 611 days and, therefore, applicant prays that same be condoned ion the interest of justice. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the present application vehemently and submitted that there are laches and lapses on the part of applicants at every stage i.e. at the stage of submission of the application for certified copy, 3 receipt of certified copy and filing of the First Appeal and delay caused is willful, deliberate and intentional and same cannot be condoned. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that prejudice will be caused to the respondents if the present application is allowed and hence, submitted that present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits and, therefore, same be rejected. The learned counsel for respondents also submits that administrative procedure and official hassels is no ground for condonation of delay and relied upon 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) and also on the judgment delivered 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.). 5. Considering the submissions in the present application and also considering the rival submissions, it is a matter of record that although the judgment and order was passed by the learned trial Court on 25.10.2004, the applicant applied for the certified copy almost after three months i.e. on 1.2.2005. Moreover, although the said copies were ready for delivery on 15.2.2005, the applicant collected the said copies after 4 the substantial period of two months i.e. on 16.4.2005. Pertinently the delay at both the stages has not been explained by the applicant. Besides that, although the matter was assigned to A.G.P. on 14.1.2005 for drafting the First Appeal, it appears that the accompanying First Appeal came to be filed on 25.9.2006 and the said delay of almost one year and 8 months is nowhere explained by the applicant. Hence, it is aptly clear that the delay occurred in filing the accompanying First Appeal is not bonafide and it appears that same is willful, deliberate and intentional and, therefore, same cannot obe condoned. 6. 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), in which it has been held as under : “ 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 5 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.” 7. 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.) 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 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 6 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.” 8. In the circumstances, the present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits and hence, deserves to be rejected and the same stands rejected accordingly. Registration of First appeal stands refused. [SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] fmp/ca9496.06