1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3538/2007 IN IN FIRST APPEAL (ST)NO. 19386/2007 (State of Maharashtra and another vs. Mahadeo Pandurang Tikhat (Died) Through LRs)) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Mr Nitin Sambre, Govt. Pleader for applicants Coram : A.P.BHANGALE, J. Dated : 10 th November, 2009 By this application, the applicants-State of Maharashtra and another have prayed for condonation of delay of six years and 73 days in order to file the Appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 26.6.2000 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Yavatmal in Land Acquisition Case No. 97/1992. 2. Learned Government Pleader contended that although the impugned judgment and order was passed on 26.6.2000, for certified copies, application was made on 10.10.2005 which was received on 20.12.2005. The present application was filed on 17.4.2006. It is further contended that opinion was sought from the Joint Secretary, Law & Judiciary Department so as to prefer the appeal as also sanction to file the appeal. Learned Government Pleader submitted that after issuance of notices by this Court, the affidavit dated 3.11.2009 sworn in by Mr Bhupati Prasad Pandey, Principal 2 Secretary (Forests), Revenue & Forests Department, was filed indicating that letter dated 9.10.2009 from Assistant Government Pleader concerned was received on 12.10.2009 communicating the order dated 12.8.2009. According to the deponent, it appears that the report from Collector, Yavatmal was also called as regards delay in filing the appeal challenging the order dated 26.6.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge Sr.Dn . Yavatmal. The deponent further contended that the order dated 26.6.2000 (sought to be impugned herein) came in the know of Special Land Acquisition Officer Road Project, Z.P. On 3.7.2003, when the land owner submitted copy of the order in the Office. The Assistant Dist. Government Pleader concerned of Yavatmal had not communicated the order to the Land Acquisition Officer and it appears that the Assistant Government Pleader, by name one Deepak Chambhare was asked about the failure to communicate the decision dated 26.6.2000 to the Collector Yavatmal and Special Land Acquisition Officer, Road Project Z.P. Yavatmal and the acquiring body. It is further contended that due to busy schedule of Maharashtra Assembly elections, the SLAO, RP ZP went to the High Court, Nagpur and discussed with the AGP of the High Court on 16.10.2009. According to the deponent, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, RP ZP Yavatmal is not responsible for delay in preferring the appeal. The Collector Yavatmal has already been directed to make an inquiry regarding responsibility for delay that has been caused. 3. Another affidavit sworn in by Mr Sunil Porwal, Principal Secretary, Rural Development & Water Conservation Department Mantralaya, Mumbai was filed on 3.11.2009 contending the identical reasons; that Government Pleader in the matter did not apply for obtaining certified copy for a period of five years and that name of the Water Conservation Department had not appeared in the High Court order dated 2 nd September, 2009. According to this 3 deponent, the scheme is implemented by Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal under the purview of the Water Conservation Department. Further, according to this deponent, he has already instructed the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation (Local Sector) Pune to inquire and fix the responsibility against these persons and report to the State Government immediately. 4. Mr. Sambre, learned Govt. Pleader also submitted that under the circumstances narrated herein-above, when respondents have not appeared in order to contest the application despite notices to them, the delay deserves to be condoned. It does appear that original respondent (claimant)-Mahadeo Pandurang Tikhat, left for his heavenly abode, long back and his legal representatives were brought on record. Be that as it may; the explanation in the affidavits submitted before the Court failed to persuade this Court to condone an inordinate delay of six years and 73 days notwithstanding non- appearance of legal heirs of original claimant before the Court, once finality has been obtained by a decision for about 6 years and 73 days there is no satisfactory or plausible ground for to condone the inordinate delay. The Law Officers appearing in the matter are expected to take care that they abide by the Law Officers Rules which are in force, issued by the State of Maharashtra, with due diligence. With these observations, Application stands rejected. JUDGE. sahare