1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Civil Application (caf) No. 1598 of 2011 (In First Appeal St. No. 11091/11) M.I.D.C. ...Versus... Dipak s/o Ram Langote & ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. M.M. Agnihotri Advocate for appellant. Mr. A. Kukday Advocate for Respondent no.1. … CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 22.09.2011. Perused the application as well as reply filed by respondent no.1. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties on the prayer for condonation of delay of 1782 days in filing the first appeal. The Award under challenge is dated 9.8.2006 and this appeal came to be filed in this Court on 29.6.2011, i.e. almost after five years. The first reason furnished by the learned counsel for the appellant is with reference to para 7 of the application. The reasons furnished in para 7 of the application are as vague as they could be. The first 2 reason given is that the local counsel did not inform the passing of the impugned judgment to the Regional Officer. The second reason is that the office record of the appellant was misplaced. No details whatsoever have been furnished on the above two aspects, except the vague statements aforesaid. In para 8 of the application there is a mention that after coming to know of the judgment and Award for the first time on 13.4.2010 the certified copy thereof was applied and was received on 22.4.2010. This statement in para 8 read with para 7 of the application is clearly false and in fact constitute perjury. The reason is that along with the reply, letter dated 18.8.2006 (Annexure-I) issued by District Government Pleader to the Sub Divisional Officer & Land Acquisition Officer has been placed on record and copy of the said letter was marked to the Executive Officer, M.I.D.C. Lohara, i.e. the appellant herein, who received the same on 30.8.2006 as per the endorsement. That means the Area Manager was aware about the judgment dated 9.8.2006. The second statement that the lawyer did not inform about the judgment is another falsehood, since vide Annexure-II to the reply there is copy of application dated 19.10.2006 filed by the counsel for the appellant Sau. C.S. Muley in respect of the impugned judgment dated 9.8.2006 and she had paid Rs.200/- for obtaining the certified copy. Not only that, 3 thereafter the copy appears to have been furnished. Thereafter Execution proceedings were filed by the claimants in which notices were served on the appellant vide Execution Case No. 25/06 and service was made on the appellant on 15.2.2007. The appellant appeared in the execution proceedings in the year 2007 itself and still a stand is taken that the appellant did not know about passing of the impugned judgment. I quote below paragraphs 4 and 5 from the reply - “4. It is submitted that the Sub Divisional Officer was informed by the office of District Government Pleader about passing of the judgment in the month of August 2006. A copy of this communication is annexed herewith as Annexure I. It is submitted that the certified copy was applied on 19.10.2006 by Advocate C.S. Muley. A copy of said application is annexed herewith as Annexure II. 5. It is submitted that the respondent no.1 herein filed the execution proceedings before the Hon'ble 1 st Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Yavatmal, in the month of November 2006. A copy of Darkhast bearing I.A.C. Ex. No. 25/2006 is annexed herewith as Annexure II. It is pertinent to 4 mention here that all the respondents were served on 15.6.2007 and appeared in the execution. It is submitted that Warrant under Order 21 Rule 43 of C.P.P.C. was issued and S.D.O. who was the L.A.O. Yavatmal had asked for time to pay amount as the same was called from Government of Maharashtra as per the report of Bailiff of Yavatmal dated 4.2.2009. A copy of bailiff report is annexed herewith as Annexure IV”. Not only that, certified copy was received on 22.4.2010 but this appeal came to be filed on 29.6.2011, i.e. after 1 year and two months for which there is no proper explanation. On the contrary, without any supporting documents, vague statements have been made in para 8 and 9 of the application. The appellant cannot expect the Court to accept the bare statements mentioned in para 8 and 9 of the application. It must be remembered that the impugned judgment is in relation to compulsory acquisition of lands from the farmers at a throwaway price and, therefore, the farmers cannot be treated in the manner they have been treated by the appellant. For the above reasons therefore, there is not only negligence but deliberate omission on the part of the appellant in filing the appeal late. The delay of 1782 days therefore 5 cannot be condoned in the absence of proper reasons. C.A.F. No. 1598/11 is therefore rejected. In view of the fact that the appellant has committed perjury, it would be necessary to impose costs of Rs.10,000/- on the appellant payable to the claimants. The costs shall be paid within four weeks from today. It is made clear that the appellants would be at liberty to recover the costs of Rs.10,000/- from its concerned officers responsible in the matter. As a sequel, F.A. St.No. 11091/11 also stands dismissed. Judge /TA/