1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11664 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.25856 OF 2004 The State of Maharashtra ... APPLICANT VERSUS Shripati s/o Vishwanath Shinde ... RESPONDENT ----- Shri S.D. Kaldate, A.G.P. for applicant Respondent served – absent ----- CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 23rd February, 2010. ORAL ORDER : 1. Perused. Heard learned A.G.P. for the applicant. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant for condonation of delay of 4786 days caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 4.5.1991, passed by learned II Additional District Judge, Latur in L.A.R. No.382/1985. 2 3. The applicant submits that, the impugned judgment and order was passed on 4.5.1991 and the applicant applied for the certified copy and after receipt of the same, approached to the office of District Government Pleader and sought for opinion for filing the First Appeal before this Court. Thereafter, on receipt of the opinion, the applicant collected the necessary documents and submitted a proposal to Law & Judiciary Department for sanction and in turn, the Law & Judiciary Department placed the proposal befor ethe Committee, which took decision to acquiesce the proposal on 19.7.1997. 4. It is also contention of the applicant that the Division Bench of this Court made observations in the order passed in First Appeal No.1036/2002 that in large number of land acquisition cases the proposals are either not submitted or even after receipt of the proposals the appeals are not filed. Therefore, this Court, by order dated 21.2.2003 in Civil Application No.7117/2001 in First Appeal No.1036/2002, directed the Collector, Latur to submit report in respect of the land acquisition cases from Latur district. Accordingly, the Collector, Latur submitted report to this Court on 29.4.2003 . It is also submitted that, this Court directed to submit the report of land acquisition cases from the period of 1990 to 2002 and as per report of the Collector, there were 6311 land acquisition references which came to be decided by reference 3 Court in Latur district, out of which a Committee has taken a decision to acquiesce with the award in 4000 cases. All such proposals were re-considered and Committee took decision to file First Appeal on 29.8.2003 and thereafter Law & Judiciary Department sanctioned the proposal and forwarded the same to the office of Government Pleader, High Court, Bench at Aurangabad on 30.8.2003. Accordingly, the said proposals were scrutinised thoroughly and communication was made to Collector, Latur as to compliance of the same as early as possible. It is submitted that, since there were about 4000 proposals received to the office of Government Pleader, some time was consumed in drafting and typing appeal memos and other documents and, therefore, delay was caused in filing the First Appeal which is not deliberate nor intentional, but same was caused because of administrative exigencies which may be condoned. 5. The respondent remained absent in spite of service. 6. Apparently, the delay caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal is more than 13 years and the grounds put forth for condonation of the said delay are administrative exigencies. In the said context, reliance can be placed on the ratio laid down and observations made by the Division Bench headed by Hon’ble the Chief Justice of this Court 4 in the case reported at 2008(6) Mh.L.J. 239 (State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Vithu Kalya Govari and others), in which it has been observed 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 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.” 7. Moreover, reliance can also be placed on the ratio laid down by 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.) by judgment dated 3.11.2008, in which it 5 is observed in paragraph No.24 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.” 8. In the circumstances, present application bears bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be dismissed. 6 9. In the result, present Civil Application stands dismissed. Registration of First Appeal stands refused. [SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] fmp/ca11664.04