1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9679 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.19892 OF 2007 The Special Land Acquisition Officer No.2, Dhule and another ... APPLICANTS VERSUS Yamunabai w/o Popat Patil ... RESPONDENT ----- Shri K.B. Choudhari, A.G.P. for the applicants Ms Rashmi P. Hardas, Advocate holding for Shri C.R. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent ----- CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 7th September, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Perused. 2. The applicants have preferred the present Civil Application for condonation of delay of 2372 days in filing the accompanying First Appeal under Stamp No.19892/2007, challenging the judgment and order passed by learned Jt. Civil 2 Judge, Senior Division, Dhule in Land Acquisition Reference No. 22/1997 on 25.1.2001. 3. The applicants contend that, the judgment and award was passed on 25.1.2001 and the applicants applied for certified copy thereof on 5.5.2003 which was ready on 21.5.2003 and same was collected by the applicants on 23.5.2003. Moreover, the concerned District Government Pleader submitted the proposal for filing the appeal to Law & Judiciary Department for sanction. After sanction, the said proposal was forwarded to the Government Pleader’s office, High Court on 2.3.2002 and it was assigned to A.G.P. for drafting on 4.3.2002. 4. The applicants further submit that, the letters were sent to concerned Department for want of certified copy of judgment and award, typed copies of judgment and award/ order and difference chart on 21.7.2004, 31.8.2004, 13.5.2005 and 17.1.2006. The typed copy of judgment and award has been prepared and submitted to the office of Government Pleader on 17.1.2006 by the concerned Department. The Demand Draft of Court fees was collected from acquiring body and deposited in the office of Government Pleader on 11.6.2007 and since there was heavy workload in the office of Government Pleader, the delay was caused in filing the accompanying appeal. 3 5. The applicants, therefore, submit that the delay caused is not deliberate and intentional and same was caused because of procedural aspects and administrative reasons and prayed that same be condoned in the interest of justice. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the present application although no reply has been filed by the respondents on the facts. 7. Heard both the counsel for the parties. 8. The learned A.G.P. for the applicants submitted that the delay caused in filing the accompanying appeal is not willful, deliberate and intentional. The learned A.G.P. further submitted that the applicants be given opportunity to prosecute the accompanying First Appeal on merits since the applicants hope to success therein. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is inordinate delay in filing the accompanying appeal and same appears to be intentional and deliberate and not on the administrative and procedural grounds and, therefore, same cannot be condoned. The learned counsel for the respondent 4 relied upon the ratio laid down and observations made in the case reported at 2008(6) Mh.L.J. 239 (State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Vithu Kalya Govari and others), and also relied upon the ratio laid down and observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case reported at 2008(6) ALT 38(SC) (Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by L.Rs. Vs. Exe. Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project and Anr.). 10. Considering the rival submissions, at the outset, on perusal of the account of dates given in the present application by the applicants, it appears that there is delay on the part of the applicants at every stage of the matter. Moreover, the delay is of 2372 days which is more than 6 ½ years which apparently is the substantial period and certainly it is an inordinate delay. Although the applicants are Government authorities, recently it has been held by the Division Bench of this Court headed by Hon’ble the Chief Justice that official hassle cannot constitute sufficient or reasonable cause so as to condone the delay and it has been observed in the said reported judgment at 2008(6) Mh.L.J. 239 (State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Vithu Kalya Govari and others), (supra) as under : “ The public authority or a department is not expected to be negligent or to take no action for years and let the matters become barred by time surely because of its negligence and inaction. The applicants in their application have stated that 5 delay occurred because of “official hassle” and approval at different levels. This can hardly justify condonation of delay. In law advantage has accrued to the non-applicants claimants and the same ought not to be withdrawn in a mechanical manner and that too without any sufficient cause being shown by the applicants. Despite, awards/ judgments of the Courts, which have attained finality, the claimants are not permitted to receive compensation that itself would be a sufficient prejudice to their rights. Before the delay can be condoned and claimants can be subjected to a prolonged litigation, the onus to show sufficient cause lies upon the applicant State. For the reason that the applicants have failed to show sufficient or reasonable cause (in fact they have shown no cause) for the condonation of delay, it is declined.” 11. Accordingly, even the delay of two years was not considered and was not condoned by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case. In the instant case, the delay is more than 6 ½ years and same also cannot be condoned since it is inordinate delay. 12. Moreover, recently the Apex Court, in the case reported at 2008(6) ALT 38(SC) (Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by L.Rs. Vs. Exe. Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project and Anr.) (supra), by judgment dated 3.11.2008, held that it is the duty of the applicants though they are Government authorities, to explain the delay with 6 cogent reasons and reliance can be very much placed on the observations made in paragraph No.24 thereof which reads as under : “24. It is true when the State and its instrumentalities are the applicants seeking condonation of delay they may be entitled to certain amount of latitude but the law of limitation is same for citizen and for Governmental authorities. Limitation Act does not provide for a different period to the Government in filing appeals or applications as such. It would be a different matter where the Government makes out a case where public interest was shown to have suffered owing to acts of fraud or collusion on the part of its officers or agents and where the officers were clearly at cross purposes with it. In a given case if any such facts are pleaded or provided they cannot be excluded from consideration and those factors may go into the judicial verdict. In the present case, no such facts are pleaded and proved though a feeble attempt by the learned counsel for the respondent was made to sugget collusion and fraud but without any basis. We cannot entertain the submission made across the Bar without there being any proper foundation in the pleadings.” 13. In the circumstances, the delay in the instant case appears to be inordinate and same has not been explained 7 properly by the applicants. There certainly appears to be laxity on the part of the applicants. Hence, present application does not bear any substance and same is devoid of any merits and, therefore, same stands rejected. 14. Since the present Civil Application for condonation of delay is rejected, nothing survives in First Appeal Stamp No. 19892/2007 and, therefore, registration thereof is refused. [SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] fmp/ca9679.07