1 CA17853.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.17853 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 35322 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra .. .. Appellant Versus Kisan Govindrao Sutar .. Respondent Shri S.D.Kaldate,AGP for Applicant. CORAM : K. K. TATED, J. DATE : 23RD DECEMBER, 2010. PER COURT: . This civil application is preferred by the Appellant-State of Maharashtra for condonation of delay of 5604 days in preferring the appeal against the Judgment and Award dated 24-04-1995, passed by the Reference Court in the L.A.R. NO.100/1990. 2. The learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that initially Government took decision not to prefer appeal against the 2 CA17853.10 judgment and award passed by Reference Court but thereafter Divisional Commissioner Aurangabad in the year 1997 made a grievance with the Principal Secretary, R.L.A., Law and Judiciary Department by letter dated 31-05-1997 about awarding exorbitant compensation and therefore, it is necessary to review the previous decision taken by the Government. He further submits that this Court in First Appeal Nos. 517/1997 and 537/1997 directed the Government to hold inquiry and reconsider the previous decision. He submits that pursuant to the said order in First Appeal Nos. 517/1997 and 537/1997, the Government given sanction to prefer this appeal against the impugned judgment and award. Therefore, there is delay of 5604 days in preferring the appeal. 3. In the present appeal, the Reference Court awarded enhanced compensation in respect of the acquired land Rs.7351/-. Foot note of the first appeal memo shows that S.L.A.O. initially awarded compensation Rs.37,649/-/- and same was enhanced by 3 CA17853.10 the Reference Court and awarded Rs.45,000/-. 4. I have gone through the entire Civil Application. In the Civil Application, nowhere stated when the Government took decision not to prefer appeal in this Court. Nowhere stated which concerned authority submitted report purshant to order passed by this Court in F.A. Nos.517/1997 and 537/1997. Nowhere it is stated when the office of the Government Pleader, Aurangabad received letter from Law and Judiciary. 5. 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, observed in Para-12 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 4 CA17853.10 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 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 5 CA17853.10 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 6 CA17853.10 doctrine of full pay and credit is applicable in discharge of their duties. Their actions, 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 7 CA17853.10 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 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 8 CA17853.10 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 CA17853.10 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned A.G.P. and after considering the averments made by the applicant in their civil Application, I am of the opinion that the applicant failed to disclose sufficient cause for condonation of 5604 days delay in preferring the appeal. 7. Civil Application is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- [K. K. TATED, J.] sut/DEC10/ca17853.10