ca14456.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14456 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.18254 OF 2010 1) Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation Through its Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur, 2) Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. ...APPLICANTS. VERSUS 1) Nathrao s/o Kondiba Pinate, R/o-Dhanora(Bk), Tq-Ahmedpur, Dist-Latur, 2) Deelip s/o Kondiba Pinate, R/o-As above, 3) Pralhad s/o Kondiba Pinate, R/o-As above, 4) The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Latur. ...RESPONDENTS. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14459 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.30363 OF 2010 ca14456.10 2 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14462 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.30352 OF 2010 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14465 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.30331 OF 2010 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14468 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.30344 OF 2010 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14471 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.30332 OF 2010 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14474 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.30348 OF 2010 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14478 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.30339 OF 2010 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14480 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.30356 OF 2010 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14483 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.30059 OF 2010 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14486 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.30140 OF 2010 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14489 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.30157 OF 2010 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14492 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.30169 OF 2010 ca14456.10 3 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14495 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.30176 OF 2010 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14498 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.30150 OF 2010 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14501 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.30162 OF 2010 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14505 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.30146 OF 2010 ... Shri.S.G. Sangle Advocate for Applicants. Shri.N.P. Patil - Jamalpurkar Advocate for Respondents/ Claimants. Shri.S.K. Kadam, Shri. V.D. Godbharle, A.G.P. for Respondent/State. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATE : 22ND DECEMBER, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Applicant Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation has filed these ca14456.10 4 Applications for condonation of delay in filing Appeals against the common Judgment and Award passed by the Reference Court in different Land Acquisition References. The claimants have filed reply to the Application for condonation of delay after issuance of notice by this Court. The Applicant Corporation has filed rejoinder. 3. Shri. Sangle, learned counsel appearing for the Applicants submits that there are very good reasons for not approaching this Court within reasonable time against the impugned Judgment and Award. It is submitted that Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation was not made party to the proceedings of Land Acquisition References. The Assistant Government Pleader, Ahmedpur who appeared for Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, took eight months time to inform the Applicant No.2 herein i.e. Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. The counsel submits that the irrigation activities are ca14456.10 5 handed over to Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation in the concerned region, it was necessary for the Court to issue separate notice to Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur, the Appellant No.2 herein. Even the learned Assistant Government Pleader, Ahmedpur who conducted the matter, did not intimate about the pendency of the proceedings to the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation. Further details in respect of the instances culminating in delay in approaching this Court have been detailed out by the Applicant in the rejoinder. The counsel submits that in case the delay is not condoned the Corporation would be prejudiced and the public interest would also be damaged as huge amount of public money is required to be paid. Learned counsel Shri. Sangle further submitted that, out of the same project, the Applicant Corporation had filed Appeals, wherein there was delay of more than 750 days. The Division Bench of this Court (CORAM: NARESH H. ca14456.10 6 PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ.) in the proceedings of Civil Application No.10427 of 2010 in First Appeal Stamp No.18302 of 2010 and other connected matters, condoned the delay subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand). The Managing Director of the Corporation was directed to inquire into the matter and fix responsibility on the persons who were responsible for filing Appeals at belated stage. The counsel submits that the said order was challenged in the Apex Court. By an Order dated 3rd December, 2010, the Apex Court dismissed the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.32703 of 2010. 4. Shri. Sangle, learned counsel, in support of his submissions, placed reliance on the following Reported Judgments: 1) Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another vs. Mst. Katiji and others, A.I.R. 1987 S.C., 1353, ca14456.10 7 2) G. Ramegowda, Major etc. vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 897 (1), 3) Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition, Kerala vs. K.V. Ayisumma, A.I.R. 1996 S.C., 2750, 4) State of Haryana vs. Chandra Mani and others, A.I.R. 1996 S.C., 1623, 5) State of Nagaland vs. Lipok AO and others, A.I.R. 2005 S.C., 2191, 6) Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Nath Sahu and others vs. Gobardhan Sao and others, A.I.R. 2002 S.C., 1201, 7) State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Ahmed Jaan, 2008 A.I.R. S.C.W., 5692, ca14456.10 8 8) State of Karnataka vs. Y. Moideen Kunhi (dead) by LRs. and Others, 2009 A.I.R. S.C.W., 4491. 5. Learned counsel Shri. N.P. Patil- Jamalpurkar appearing for the Respondents/Claimants submits that official exigencies, delay in handling the files, delay in communication from one official to another, cannot be ground for condonation of delay. The awards are passed by the Reference Court long back and when the awards were put to execution, the Corporation, with a sole purpose to deprive the claimants from the fruits of the award, deliberately and intentionally approached this Court by filing First Appeals. It was submitted that Appellant No.2 herein i.e. Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur was party to the Land Acquisition References who could have engaged independent advocate and contested ca14456.10 9 the matter independently on the instructions of the Corporation. In case the Appellant No.2 Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation failed to discharge his duties properly, then that should not be a ground for the Court to condone delay of such abnormal period. The counsel submitted that in view of the settled principles in respect of condonation of delay, the Application does not deserve consideration. 6. Shri. Patil - Jamalpurkar, learned counsel, in support of his submissions, placed reliance on the following Reported Judgments: 1) State of Haryana vs. Jit Ram, 1999(1) L.A.C. 157 (P & H), 2) Bihar State Electricity Board vs. Baxi S.R.P. Sinha and another, A.I.R. 1999 PATNA 203, 3) Pundlik Jalan Patil (D) by L.Rs vs. Exe. Eng. Jalgaon ca14456.10 10 Medium Project and another, 2008 (6) Bom.C.R., 513, 4) State of Rajasthan vs. M/s. Choudhary Constructions, A.I.R. 1998 RAJASTHAN, 123, 5) Mrs. Rish Prabhat vs. Delhi Development Authority, A.I.R. 1995 DELHI, 9. 7. We have perused the record placed before us, Applications, reply, rejoinder filed before us. The copy of the order dated 3rd December, 2010 passed by the Apex Court is also perused by us. We have perused the Judgments cited before us. 8. There is no dispute that principles governing condonation of delay are well settled by now. Each case requires to be dealt with and considered on the peculiar facts of its own. No doubt in the matters of land acquisition cases, huge amount of public money is involved, but at ca14456.10 11 the same time, concession cannot be given to the acquiring body to approach higher Courts as and when they like or desire. Bonafides of the acquiring body or the State approaching higher Courts are required to be assessed and scrutinized in the light of the factual data placed before the Court. 9. In the facts of this case, we find that there was want of diligency since beginning. At the same time, the contention raised by the acquiring body, requires serious consideration by this Court. In para Nos. 4, 5 and 7 in the rejoinder filed by the Corporation, it is contended that: "4. The deponent submits that the contention of the Respondents/Claimant in respect of delay as deliberate and intentional is far fetched. The deponent submits that by causing delay in filing ca14456.10 12 appeals, the appellant would not gain anything and on the contrary invites a serious risk, causing heavy or astronomical loss to the precious public exchequer. The enhancement is product of undue generosity, on misreading of evidence and further lack of opportunity to defend the interest of the appellant Corporation. The deponent submits that findings recorded by the learned Reference Court are contrary to record, manifestly perverse and unsupportable from the evidence on record and on misreading of evidence which resulted into the extreme excessiveness and undue generosity in enhancement of compensation for land as well as fruit bearing trees. 5. The deponent submits that the Hon'ble Court was pleased to condone the delay in filing Appeals in respect of ca14456.10 13 acquisition for present project and the First Appeal No. 1781/2010 Group was admitted by the Hon'ble Court on 6/08/2010. The deponent submits that the present appeals are arising out of acquisition for the same project and decided by the same Reference Court at Ahmedpur, Dist-Latur. The deponent submits that the delay caused in filing the appeals is not deliberate and intentional as would be inferred that firstly the appellants had no notice and the matters were handled by the office of the Assistant Government Pleader, at Ahmedpur, who took almost 8 months to inform the appellant No.2 in the month of December, 2008. Thereafter in hierarchical system, the subordinate was asked to procure the certified copies of judgment and award. 7. The deponent submits that ca14456.10 14 as notice was not served upon the appellant No.1 nor the appellant No.2 was represented by the counsel from the corporation, it had no knowledge of decision. The appellant No.1 got the knowledge of the decision and proceedings only on 6/11/2009, through the proposal for filing of appeals. The Legal Advisor, on receiving proposal, called for necessary papers of proceeding, which was already subject matter of requisition from the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Latur. The proposal was remitted back due to deficiencies and was again resubmitted. The requisition for court fees was received from the panel Advocate on 25.01.2010 and the same was submitted to the office of the Superintending Engineer, Parli Vaijinath on 6.02.2010, through applicant No.2. The applicants ca14456.10 15 submits that the procedure contemplated (under audit and accounting rules) required to submit the proposal/requisition for court fees through the office of the Superintending Engineer, Parli Vaijinath, to the office of the Executive Director of the Applicant No. 1." 10. We have perused the earlier order passed by this Court in identical situation, wherein by imposing cost, this Court had condoned the delay. 11. It is high time that the Applicant Corporation adopts mechanism to put their appearance in the pending matters in the Courts, so that such instances do not get repeated again and again. The Applicant Corporation has sufficient infrastructure and man power to resort to adequate measures, so that they are properly represented. It is equally necessary that the acquiring body participates in the proceedings of ca14456.10 16 Land Acquisition References. There is no denial of the fact that huge amount of public money is required to be paid to the claimants, therefore abundant caution and care is required to be maintained by the public bodies and the officers concerned. The counsel for Corporation submits that around eight crores of Rupees are directed to be paid under all these awards. 12. With this background and considering the peculiar facts of the case, we are inclined to condone delay subject to payment of cost. Delay occurred in filing Appeals stand condoned subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) in each of the Appeals. The cost shall be deposited in the Registry of this Court within SIX WEEKS from today. 13. Civil Applications are allowed in the above terms. ca14456.10 17 14. We direct the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation to enquire into the matter and fix responsibility on person/s who are responsible for causing delay in filing Appeals. The enquiry report shall be submitted before this Court on the next date of hearing. In case it is found that particular officer dealing with these files is responsible, then the amount of the cost shall be recovered from him. Necessary instructions shall be issued to all the concerned, District Officers to take steps in respect of pending References in respective Districts. . Authenticated copy of this order be provided to Shri. Sangle, learned counsel for the Applicant Corporation. [SHRIHARI P. DAVARE,J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.] asb/DEC10/ca14456.10