1 CA17865.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.17865 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 35292 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra .. .. Appellant Versus Balaji Digambar SHinde .. Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.17866 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 35301 OF 2010 Shri S.D.Kaldate,AGP for Applicant. CORAM : K. K. TATED, J. DATE : 23RD DECEMBER, 2010. PER COURT: . Both civil applications are preferred by the Appellant-State for condonation of 1271 days delay in preferring the appeals against the Judgment and Award dated 05-03-2007 passed by the Reference Court in the Land Acquisition References. 2 CA17865.10 2. The learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that District Government Pleader applied for certified copies of judgment and award on 31-08-2007. Certified copies were ready on 01-09-2007 and same were collected by the office of D.G.P. on very day. Thereafter, District Government Pleader forwarded his opinion to the Law and Judiciary Department for preferring the appeals. On the basis of said opinion, Law and Judiciary issued sanction for preferring the appeals. Office of the Government Pleader, Aurangabad received sanction from Law and Judiciary Department on 01-08-2007 and thereafter matter was assigned for drafting to the concerned A.G.P on 02-08-2007i.e.before applying certified copies of judgment and award. He submits that the delay caused because of procedure required to be followed for filing the appeals by the applicants. 4. It is to be noted that in the entire Civil Application, the applicant failed to disclose the delay from 01-08-2007 when office of Government 3 CA17865.10 Pleader Aurangabad received papers for filing the appeals. Though office of Government Pleader, Aurangabad received papers on 01-08-2007 they filed both the appeals on 25-11-2010. There is no explanation for delay from 01-08-2007 till 25-11-2010. Apart from that, in First Appeal Stamp No.35292/2010 in L.A.R. NO.124/2005, the Reference Court awarded enhanced compensation in respect of acquired land is Rs.8930/- and in L.A.R. No. 192/2005 Rs.5170/-. 5. 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 expected of the State, in the modern times and with modern amenities and 4 CA17865.10 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 decline to entertain the appeals. Secondly, the liability of statutory 5 CA17865.10 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 doctrine of full pay and credit is applicable in discharge of their 6 CA17865.10 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 24th June 2005 to 15th May 2007 in C.A. No. 5422 of 2008, there is not even an 7 CA17865.10 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 Resolution, complete time frame should be provided for applying and/or 8 CA17865.10 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. " 9 CA17865.10 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned A.G.P. and after considering the averments made by the applicant in their civil Applications, I am of the opinion that the applicants failed to disclose sufficient cause for condonation of 1271 days delay in preferring the appeals. 7. Civil Applications are dismissed. No order as to costs. sd/- [K. K. TATED, J.] sut/DEC10/ca17865.10