1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 938 OF 2007 Smt. Nandabai w/o. Balkrishna Margude Age 35 years, Occ. Labour, R/o. Khanapur,Tal. Majalgaon, District Beed, at present r/o. Devdi, Tq. Wadwani, Dist. Beed. through GPA Vishwambhar s/o. Sitaram Lagad, Age 43 years, Occ. Agril. R/o. Telgaon, Taluma Dharur, District Beed. .. Petitioner Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2] The Collector, Beed, Dist. Beed. 3] Special Land Acquisition Officer, Beed, District Beed. .. Respondents Mr. B.R. Sable, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.K. Kadam, AGP for respondents. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 4TH AUGUST, 2009. ORAL ORDER :- 2 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. . The limited grievance raised by the present petitioner is regarding not deciding the application filed by the present petitioner under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act. 2] The land of the petitioner admeasuring 5 Acres 9 Gunthas was acquired by the Government for Jaikwadi project on 20th January, 1986. An award was passed. The compensation granted under the award was withdrawn by the petitioner under protest. In the meantime, a reference was filed under Section 18 by one Balkrishna Margude and Bhaurao Margude. The same was decided on 5th February, 1990. Accordingly, the predecessor in title of the petitioner had field an application objection under Section 28-A of the said Act, within limitation claiming that they are entitled to enhanced compensation, as was granted in Land Acquisition Reference No. 365/1987. In the said proceeding, the say of the petitioner's father in law and husband were recorded on 27th November, 2001. Since the claim of the petitioner has not been decided, the present petition. 3] Though inspite of issuance of notice vide order dated 14th October, 2007, reply was not filed till 31st July, 2009, this court had directed the Collector, Beed to remain present in the court and explain as to why the reference was not decided for considerable length of time and also so explain as to why reply was not filed in the present petition. 4] An affidavit has been filed by one Mohan Balchand 3 Katte, Additional Collector, who is presently holding the charge of the office of the Collector, since the Collector Beed has gone on study leave. It has been specifically stated in the affidavit in reply that the affidavit in reply could not be filed due to oversight and bonafide mistake on the part of the respondent authorities. 5] When notice is issued by this court, the authorities of the State are bound to respond to the said notice and assist this court in discharge of its constitutional duties. Firstly, it is on account of erroneous orders passed by the authorities or inaction of the authorities, the citizen of this country are required to knowk the doors of this court by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 . Secondly, it is on account of non- response by the authorities of the State, the matters are lingering in court, for years together and cannot be decided within reasonable time. It is only on account of casual and callous approach on the part of the authorities of the state, the citizens are deprived of their right to get justice at the earliest which has been interpreted to be a right under the Constitution. 6] As already discussed hereinabove, the explanation is casual and stereo-type. 7] We are constrained to observe that the authorities of the State are thoroughly negligent and act in a callous and casual manner while dealing with the litigations affecting the rights of the citizen. If the authorities of the State act promptly and in accordance with law, half the litigation could be curtailed. If the 4 authorities of the State respond within a reasonable time, the citizen can get justice within reasonable time. 8] This is not the first case that we have come across wherein the authorities of the State have been negligent in deciding the legitimate claim of the citizen and responding to the notices issued by the court within reasonable time. 9] In the present case, though the petitioner has filed a reference under Section 28-A in the year 1990, it was not decided for a period of 17 years, which required the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226. Even after issuance of notice on 14th February 2007, by this court, for a period of 2 years and 6 months, the reply was not filed which necessitated this court to summon the Collector, Beed. . We could have taken a serious view of the matter. However, we are inclined to accept the unconditional apology tendered by the respondent No.2. However, the Registry is directed to endorse a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary of the Government of Maharashtra for information and necessary action. 10] It is expected that the Chief Secretary will look personally into the matter and issue necessary instructions to all the concerned officers in the State to ensure that whenever matters pertaining to the rights of the citizen are pending before the authorities of the State, they shall be dealt with without any delay and if notices are issued by this court, the authorities of the 5 State would respond to the same within a reasonable time and assist the court in the administration of justice 11] In so far as the present case is concerned, it can be seen that the respondents have themselves admitted that the application of the petitioner is received on 6th September 1990. The only reason given is that the file is not traceable since the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalna has been shifted to Ambejogai. On a query, it is informed to us that the office has been shifted to Ambejogai in the year 2007. There is no explanation as to why the application was not decided from 1990 to 2007. 12] In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed with a direction to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to decide the application filed by the present petitioner under Section 28-A within a period of 3 months from today. The respondent state is directed to pay the costs to the petitioner which are quantified at Rs.10,000/-. This is by way of a token indication of the concern of this court towards the negligent and callous attitude of the State Government. We make it clear that hereinafter, if we come across such repeated instances, we will be constrained to take a serious view of the matter. The learned AGP also undertakes to forward a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary of the State of Maharashtra, for necessary action. Rule made absolute in above terms. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.] grt/-