1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3200 OF 2007 (For Condonation of Delay) ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3201 OF 2007 (For Stay) IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.11231 OF 2007 IN L.A.R. NO.23 OF 2002 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra' Mantralaya, Mumbai. 3. The Collector, Raigad-Alibag 4. The Additional Collector, Raigad-Alibag. 5. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, .. Applicants Metro Centre No.1, Panvel, (Orig.Opponents District Raigad. Nos.1 to 5) Versus 1. Shri Vithu Kalya Govari Age 47 yrs. 2. Shri Bhagwan Kalya Govari, Age 32 yrs. 2 3. Smt. Dhondibai Kalya Govari, Age 51 yrs. 4. Smt. Rukmini Kalya Govari, Age 37 yrs. 5. Smt. Kalavati Kalya Govari, Age 34 yrs. 6. Smt. Bamibai Kalya Govari, Age 67 yrs., All R/o. Kamothe, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. Through Power of Attorney Holder, Ambaji Gopal Mali, Age 52 yrs., R/o. Dhakta-Khanda, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. .. Respondents ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5442 OF 2007 (For Condonation of Delay) ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5443 OF 2007 (For Stay) IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.22703 OF 2007 IN L.A.R. NO.8 OF 2004 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant (Through Special Land Acquisition 3 Officer Metro Centre No.1, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad.) Versus Shri Yusuf Hajisheikh Mahammad, Mastri, Age 48 years, Occu. Agriculturist and Business, R/o. Bagvan Mohalla, Taluka-Panvel, District Raigad. .. Respondents ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3202 OF 2007 (For Condonation of Delay) ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3203 OF 2007 (For Stay) IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.11234 OF 2007 IN L.A.R. NO.38 OF 2002 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra' Mantralaya, Mumbai. 3. The Collector, Raigad-Alibag 4. The Additional Collector, Raigad-Alibag. 4 5. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, .. Applicants Metro Centre No.1, Panvel, (Orig.Opponents District Raigad. Nos.1 to 5) Versus 1. Shri Kamalakar Shankar Pavanekar, Adult 2. Shri Mohan Shankar Pavanekar Adult 3. Smt. Atmaram Shankar Pavanekar Adult 4. Smt. Hashibai Sitaram Mhatre Adult. All R/o. Kamothe, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. Through Power of Attorney Holder, Ambaji Gopal Mali, Age 52 yrs., R/o. Dhakta-Khanda, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. .. Respondents ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3204 OF 2007 (For Condonation of Delay) ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3205 OF 2007 (For stay) IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.11238 OF 2007 IN L.A.R. NO.39 OF 2002 5 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra' Mantralaya, Mumbai. 3. The Collector, Raigad-Alibag 4. The Additional Collector, Raigad-Alibag. 5. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, .. Applicants Metro Centre No.1, Panvel, (Orig.Opponents District Raigad. Nos.1 to 5) Versus 1. Shri Kundalik Balu Pavanekar, Age 63 yrs. 2. Smt. Ganibai Gavatya Mhatre, Age 52 yrs. 3. Shri Anibai Barakya Mhatre, Age 57 yrs. 4. Shri Rohidas Sadu Pavanekar, Age 42 yrs. 5. Smt. Fashibai Krishna Kadav, Age 40 yrs. 6. Shri Shivdas Sadu Pavanekar Age 30 yrs. 7. Shri Vishwas Sadu Pavanekar, 6 Age 30 yrs. 8. Smt. Sharada Ananta Fadake, Age 28 yrs. 9. Shri Pandit Sadu Pavanekar, Age 26 yrs. All R/o. Kamothe, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. Through Power of Attorney Holder, Ambaji Gopal Mali, Age 52 yrs., R/o. Dhakta-Khanda, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. .. Respondents ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3206 OF 2007 (For Condonation of Delay) ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3207 OF 2007 (For stay) IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.11227 OF 2007 IN L.A.R. NO.43 OF 2002 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra' Mantralaya, Mumbai. 7 3. The Collector, Raigad-Alibag 4. The Additional Collector, Raigad-Alibag. 5. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, .. Applicants Metro Centre No.1, Panvel, (Orig.Opponents District Raigad. Nos.1 to 5) Versus 1. Shri Kundalik Balu Pavanekar, Age 63 yrs. 2. Smt. Ganibai Gavatya Mhatre, Age 52 yrs. 3. Shri Anibai Barakya Mhatre, Age 57 yrs. 4. Shri Rohidas Sadu Pavanekar, Age 42 yrs. 5. Smt. Fashibai Krishna Kadav, Age 40 yrs. 6. Shri Shivdas Sadu Pavanekar Age 38 yrs. 7. Shri Vishwas Sadu Pavanekar, Age 30 yrs. 8. Smt. Sharada Ananta Fadake, Age 28 yrs. 9. Shri Pandit Sadu Pavanekar, Age 26 yrs. 8 All R/o. Kamothe, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. Through Power of Attorney Holder, Ambaji Gopal Mali, Age 52 yrs., R/o. Dhakta-Khanda, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. .. Respondents ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3208 OF 2007 (For Condonation of Delay) ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3209 OF 2007 (For stay) IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.11222 OF 2007 IN L.A.R. NO.25 OF 2003 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra' Mantralaya, Mumbai. 3. The Collector, Raigad-Alibag 4. The Additional Collector, Raigad-Alibag. 5. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, .. Applicants Metro Centre No.1, Panvel, (Orig.Opponents District Raigad. Nos.1 to 5) 9 Versus 1. Shri Padu Walaku Chipalekar, Age 43 yrs. 2. Shri Posna Walaku Chipalekar, Age 37 yrs. 3. Smt. Raibai Walaku Chipalekar, Age 66 yrs. All R/o. Kamothe, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. Through Power of Attorney Holder, Ambaji Gopal Mali, Age 52 yrs., R/o. Dhakta-Khanda, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. .. Respondents Ms. G.P. Mulekar, Assistant Government Pleader for applicant-State. Mr. S.G. Surana for non-applicants (claimants). Mr. U.P. Warunjikar for non-applicants (claimants) in Civil Application Nos.5442 of 2007 and 5443 of 2007. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & V.M. KANADE Date of reserving the judgment : 18 th June, 2008 Date of pronouncing the judgment : 26 th June, 2008 JUDGMENT (Per Swatanter Kumar, C.J.) All the above mentioned appeals have been preferred by 10 the State of Maharashtra against the judgment and award of the reference court and are barred by time. The State has filed applications for condonation of delay on somewhat similar explanation in all these cases. Thus, it would be appropriate to dispose of all these applications and the appeals by by a common judgment. The relevant facts giving rise to the present appeals are (reference is made to the facts of First Appeal Stamp No.11231 of 2008 and First Appeal Stamp No.22703 of 2008 an under. The State Government issued a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, on 3rd February, 1970. In furtherance to this notification, declaration under section 6 was published in the official gazette on 11.1.1973. The State Government took possession of the lands in the year 1984. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, the Special Land Acquisition Officer made his award under section 11 of the Act on 10.8.1984. The lands in all these cases were acquired from the revenue estate of village Panvel. The SLAO awarded compensation to the claimants for acquisition of all their lands between Rs.1.50 to Rs.5.00 per sq. meter. The claimants being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded to them, 11 preferred reference under section 18 of the Act in LAR No.8 of 2004 out of which First Appeal Stamp No.22703 of 2007 has arisen, while the other claimants in other land references viz. 23 of 2002, 38 of 2002, 39 of 2002, 43 of 2002 and 25 of 2003 did not prefer references under section 18 of the Act but after making of the awards under section 11 of the Act, moved petitions under section 28A of the Act before the SLAO (Collector) who made an award on 6.3.2001. Being dissatisfied with the award made by the SLAO, the claimants made the above five references to the reference court which passed an award and judgment dated 4.11.2004, giving rise to the appeals being First Appeal stamp Nos.11231 of 2007, 11234 of 2007, 11238 of 2007, 11227 of 2007 and 11222 of 2007. 2. Before the learned reference court in all the land references, the case of the claimants was that Panvel-Diva Railway line has started and resultantly, Panvel city was developing. The potential of their land, thus, had gone up at the time of acquisition. They further contended that they had also placed sale instances before the Special Land Acquisition Officer showing that the land was 12 sold even in the year 1967 at the rate of Rs.23.92 (4.5) per sq. meter which fact was recorded by the reference court. Evidence was also led on record to show that CIDCO let out the lands at the rate of Rs.60/- per sq.mtr. by laying the plots. On these, the claimants under section 18, claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.40/- per sq. mtr. They had also examained Smt. Joshi, valuer as PW 3 and her statement Exhibit 17 supported the case of the claimants. They also examined the valuer Anil Wandre who supported the market value claimed by the claimants. In petitions under section 28A, the claimants prayed that their lands were situated within the limits of Panvel and/or Mumbai-Pune Highway and Panvel-Matheran road are near to the lands in question and there was tremendous growth of industrial activity and the potential of the land of the petitioners was immense. Amenities like school, college, market, hospital were available nearby the acquired lands. The references under section 28A were filed within time and they had relied upon the statement of PW1 Ambaji Gopal Mali, Power of Attorney holder of the claimant and were decided by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel fixing the value of the land ranging between Rs.32/- to Rs.38/- per sq.mtr. of 13 various lands in the vicinity and on this basis, the claimants claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.60/- per sq. mtr. The learned reference court decided all the petitions filed before the court under section 28A by a common judgment and award dated 4.11.2004 granting enhanced compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs.29/- per sq. mtr. in all the five references. While the concerned court dealing with the petition under section 18 of the Act viz. Land Reference No.8 of 2004 also enhanced the compensation and directed the State of Maharashtra to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.30/- per sq. mtr. The State felt aggrieved from both these judgments and, thus, preferred the above appeals which are patently barred by time. 3. For seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeals, the State of Maharashtra filed different applications viz. Civil Application No.3200 of 2007 in First Appeal Stamp No. 11231 of 2007 and Civil Application No.5442 of 2007 in First Appeal Stamp No.22703 of 2007. Applications in other appeals have also been filed on similar facts and circumstances. All the appeals in question are 14 barred by two years 45 days to 2 years 63 days. In other words, all the appeals are barred by time by more than two years. In the applications for condonation of delay and even during the course of arguments, it is argued that there are various steps in the Government hierarchy that have to be taken before an appeal is filed against the judgment and award of the reference court. Various officials hassles and steps, thus, resulted in consuming the time and resulting in delay of more than two years in filing the present appeals. In Civil Application No.3200 of 2007, it is stated in para 3 that delay in filing first appeal is caused because the office of the SLAO, Panvel took time in sending the necessary documents to the office of the District Government Pleader, Alibag. The delay is caused due to procedural hassles and approval at different levels in the Government departments. We may notice that in para 2 of the application, some dates have been given. It is stated that the Award was made on 4.11.2004. The certified copy was applied on 22.11.2004 which was ready on 29.1.2005. The appeal proposal was moved by the District Govrnment Pleader to the concerned department on 15.2.2005 and the appeal ought to have been filed by 15 11th March, 2005. The matter was kept pending for a period of three months without any action when the Law & Judiciary Department, on 22nd June, 2005 issued resolution for filing the first appeal. On 24th June, 2005, copy of the resolution was received in the office of the Government Pleader, High Court (A.S.), Bombay alongwith the requisite documents. It is claimed that the certified copy and the documents were received on 5rd March, 2007 after the lapse of one year and nine months. Thereafter again, time was taken for different formalities and finally, the appeals were filed on 26th April, 2007. 4. It must be noticed that in these applications, even if the court is to overlook all other intervening delays at different stages, not even iota of explanation has been rendered for a very prolonged and serious delay occurring between 15th February, 2005 to 22nd June, 2005 and thereafter, from 29th June, 2005 to 3rd March, 2007. The list of dates given and the explanation rendered in the application which in any case, is without any substantial or sufficient cause. There is not even a whisper as to what steps were taken by any authority or department during this period. The public authority or a department is 16 not expected to be in negligent or to take no action for years and let the matters become barred by time surely because of its negligence and inaction. 5. In Civil application No.5442 of 2007 again a table of dates has been stated in para 2 and there is no explanation whatsoever and not even an averment has been made in the entire application as to what steps have been taken by any department or authority between the period 24th June, 2005 to 15th May, 2007. In other words, certainly for a period of 2 years, there was complete inaction and negligence on the part of the concerned Government offices. Even there is considerable delay in taking other actions, but in view of the fact that some explanation has been rendered, we must notice the same with great emphasis that fact of the matter is that even after causing two years of delay and resolution having been passed on 22nd May, 2007, the appeal was filed in this court on 5th October, 2007. These are inordinate and unexplained delays in these application. 6. We may now proceed to discuss the principles governing 17 applications for condonation of delay. The court would exercise its discretion in condoning or declining to condone delay judiciously and ensure that no serious prejudice is caused to either of the parties to the proceedings. When an appeal becomes barred by time because of negligence or default of one of the parties, valuable rights accrues to the others which normally not being taken away in a routine manner and too liberalised exercise of discretionary power. In the case of Union of India and others v. C.L. Jain Woolen Mills Pvt.Ltd., 2006(131) Delhi Law Times, 360, the Division Bench of that court discussed the law in some detail in relation to condonation of delay and while declining to condone the delay, held as under: “............... At this stage, it will be useful to refer to the view taken by a Division Bench of this court in the case of Delhi Wakf Board vs. Sh. Balbir Singh (RFA No.80/82 decided on 20th March, 2006) where the court after discussing the various judgments, held as under- “We may also notice that even the present appeal is barred by time and application being CM No.165/82 was filed for condonation of delay and the reason given is that the appellant came to know of the order of the Court only on 17.2.82 whereafter he filed this appeal in March, 1982. Though the provisions of Section 5 have received a liberal construction in recent past, still the 18 Court cannot ignore that the fact where an appeal gets barred by time, a definite right accrues to the opposite party and such right should not be taken away in a routine manner and without disclosure of good and a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The application filed for condonation of delay in the present case hardly gives any reason or cause much less a reasonable explanation for condoning the delay. Merely because there was no communication between the client and counsel could hardly be a reason for condoning the delay of 2 years as the order was pronounced on 5th November, 1980 in the presence of the counsel and the appeal was filed in the year 1982. At this stage, we may refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal and others vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361 wherein the Court held as under:- “In construing S.5 it is relevant to bear in mind two important considerations. The first consideration is that the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed for making an appeal gives rise to a right in favour of the decree holder to treat the decree as binding between the parties and this legal right which has accrued to the decree holder by lapse of time should not be light heartedly disturbed. The other consideration which cannot be ignored is that if sufficient cause for excusing delay is shown discretion is given to the Court to condone delay and admit the appeal. ILR 19 13 Mad 13 Mad 269, Approved. It is however, necessary to emphasis that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the court by S.5. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration.;...” Reference can also be made to a judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Sanjeev Babbar and others vs. M/s. Dev Papers Pvt.Ltd. Vol. CXVII- (1998-1) The Punjab Law Reporter 814 wherein the court held as under:- “5. As is clear from the above facts that the present petitioner has been most negligent and irresponsible in pursuing his remedy. The revision petition as originally filed was barred by time as is clear from the afore- stated dates. In fact no revision was filed. It was only some papers with the impugned order which were filed without any grounds of revision as required under law. Even the requisite Court-fees was not levied. When a petition becomes barred by time, a right accrues to the other party and such a right cannot be taken away by the Court merely on an application which lacks bonafides and does not disclose any sufficient cause for condonation of delay. In the present case, 20 the revision itself may be barred not only by 67 days, but even more, because after its return on 3.7.1996 it was refiled on 3.4.1997 with grounds of revision. The delay in filing as well as in re-filing has not been explained in any of the applications. It is unfortunate, but is true, that present case discloses the extent to which a petitioner can be irresponsible and negligent of his own rights. The provisions of Limitation Act cannot be so liberally construed so as to frustrate the very purpose of the provisions of the Limitation Act. In this regard reference can be made to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala and another, JT. 1997 (8) S.C. 189, where the Hon'ble Court held as under:- Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribe and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The discretion exercised by the High Court was, thus, neither proper nor judicious. The order condoning the delay cannot be sustained. This appeal, therefore, succeeds and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay filed in the High Court would stand rejected and the Miscellaneous First Appeal shall stand dismissed as barred by time. No costs,” In the application for condonation of delay hardly any reason has been stated. All that 21 has been stated is that no authorised person had appeared on behalf of the appellant when the decree was passed on 5th November, 1980. Thereafter, application was filed under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC. Both these applications were dismissed by the trial Court on 16th February, 1980 as not maintainable and the appellant came to know about the said orders on 17th February, 1982. Thereafter, an appeal was filed in this Court on 3rd March, 1982. Except giving these dates, the application gives no explanation, much less a sufficient cause for justifying the prayer for condonation of delay. The vague averments in the application cannot be the basis for denying a substantial benefit in law to the respondent. The right of the other party cannot be taken away on such averments, which would constitute no sufficient cause on the true and correct interpretation of the sufficient cause contemplated under the provisions of the Limitation Act. We find no merit in this application and would decline to condone the delay.” 9. Even in the case of UOI v. Tata Yodogawa Ltd. 1988 (38) Excise Law Times 739 (SC), the Supreme Court took the view that the Government being impersonal takes longer time in filing the Appeals/Petitions than the private bodies or the individuals. Even giving that latitude, there must be some way or attempt to explain the cause for such delay and as there was no whisper to explain what legal problems occurred in filing the special leave petition, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed by the Supreme Court. Still in another case reported as Collector of C.Ex., Madras v. 22 A.M.D. Bilal & Co.1999(108) Excise Law Times 331 (SC), the Supreme Court declined to condone the delay of 502 days in filing the appeal while observing that the application disclosed no satisfactory or reasonable explanation. Still in a more recent case titled as P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala and anr. 1997(6) Scale 209, the Supreme Court reiterated the above principles and declined to condone the delay and held as under:- 10. The judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Tata Yodogawa Ltd. (supra) and A.MD. Bilal & Co. (supra) are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The application for condonation is without any content, reasonable or satisfactory explanation. It was obligatory upon the part of the applicant-UOI to reasonably explains the delay, may be, by not giving explanation for each day of delay but to explain the delay in a composite manner. In the entire application, no reference of any date, officers and the need for sending the file to any particular section has been stated. This was a case simplicitor for recovery of money of Rs.3,35,000/- which had been decreed against the authorities and it was held that they were liable to pay interest. It does not appear to be such a complicated issue for determination by the court which would require the UOI or its officers to take years and years to decide whether the appeal should or should not be filed. Then when it is filed after an year, it is incomplete in all respects for which action there is no even a whisper much less an explanation as to why the appeal was kept back for another one year and even the court fee for the appeal was purchased after the lapse of two years from the date of the judgment. This 23 conduct of the applicants is nothing but a negligent attitude and they are taking it to be for granted that the UOI is entitled to claim condonation of delay de hors its averments in the application. For these reasons, we find no merit in these applications and decline to condone the delay and dismiss both these applications.” 7. In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v. Mst. Katiji and others, AIR 1987 SC 1353,