1 C. A. No. 17051/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17051 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 28072 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra and another .. Applicants Versus Udhav Vithal Aghav and another .. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17053 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 28078 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra and another .. Applicants Versus Balasaheb Kishan Sarul .. Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17055 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 28081 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra and another .. Applicants Versus 2 C. A. No. 17051/2010 Pandurang Ranu Jadhav .. Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17057 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 28086 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra and another .. Applicants Versus Bhagwan Sukhdev Aghav and another .. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17059 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 28091 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra and another .. Applicants Versus Jairam Gunaji Aghav .. Respondent Shri K. M. Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for Applicants in all matters. CORAM : K. K. TATED, J. DATE : 15TH DECEMBER, 2010. 3 C. A. No. 17051/2010 PER COURT : . Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Suryawanshi for applicants. Present civil applications are preferred by the State of Maharashtra for condonation of 1489 days delay in preferring appeals against the judgment and award dated 28th April, 2006 passed by the Ist Adhoc Additional District Judge, Ambajogai in Land Acquisition References. 2. A few facts of the matter are as under : The Special Land Acquisition Officer issued notification U/Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 16th October, 1996 for acquiring respondents/original claimants land for percolation tank at village Hangewadi, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed. After following due process of law the Special Land Acquisition Officer prepared award dated 22.07.1999 and awarded compensation in respect of acquired land at the rate of Rs. 24,000/- per hector. 3. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the respondents/original claimants preferred Reference U/Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In the said reference, the Reference Court awarded enhanced compensation in respect of acquired land at the rate of Rs. 80,000/- per hector. 4 C. A. No. 17051/2010 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of applicant submits that the office of District Government Pleader applied for certified copies on 15th June, 2006 and same were ready for delivery on 14th July, 2006. Thereafter, the District Government Pleader forwarded his opinion to the Law and Judiciary Department for preferring appeal. The Law and Judiciary Department granted sanction on 16th October, 2006. The present appeals are filed in this Court on 23rd September, 2010. He submits that because of procedure required to be followed while filing first appeals on behalf of Government and also for the reasons applicant did not apply for certified copy immediately there is delay of 1489 days. He further submits they have good chance of success in present appeals. 5. It is to be noted that applicants failed to explain the delay from the date of sanction granted by the Law and Judiciary Department on 16th October, 2006 till the date of filing of these appeals in this Court on 23rd September, 2009. In para 2 the following explanation is given. "But the same is caused because of the procedure required to be followed while filing first appeal by the applicant and also for the reason the applicant did not apply for certified copy immediately. After 5 C. A. No. 17051/2010 the judgment and award is passed by the Court below. In making application for certified copies. However, it is not intentional or deliberate act on the part of the applicant or its subordinates. Taking into consideration these aspects the delay caused in filing the first appeal may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice." 6. 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 held that in civil application for condonation of delay applicant must explain sufficient cause, if sufficient cause is not explained application to be dismissed. Para 12 reads 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 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 6 C. A. No. 17051/2010 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 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 duties. Their actions, 7 C. A. No. 17051/2010 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 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 8 C. A. No. 17051/2010 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 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 C. A. No. 17051/2010 7. Considering the averments made in civil applications and as the applicants failed to disclose the delay from 16th October, 2006 till 23rd September, 2010, I do not find any reason to entertain these civil applications for condonation of delay. The civil applications for condonation of delay are dismissed with no order as to costs. [K. K. TATED, J.] bsb/Dec. 10