1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.693/09 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (L.A.) MARGAO AND ANR. .... Applicants V/s. MR. PEREGRINO J.P. DE COSTA (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. .... Respondents. Mr. Manish Salkar, Addl. Govt. Advocate for the applicants. Mr.Ryan Menezes, Advocate for respondents No.1(a) to 1(f) and 2 and 3. CORAM :- A.S. OKA, J. DATE :- 18th June, 2010. P.C. :- Heard learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the applicants and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. There is a delay of more than 800 days in preferring an appeal against the Award in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). By the impugned award, enhancement in market value of the acquired land has been granted to the respondent. 2. The impugned Award was made on 28th November, 2006. 2 It appears that the application for obtaining a certified copy of the judgment and award was made on 18th July, 2007. The certified copy was ready on 19th July, 2007. The averments made in the application are that the Executive Engineer made a report on 6th August, 2007 and forwarded the file to the State Government for taking decision on the issue of preferring an appeal. The Superintending Engineer made a note on 8th August, 2007 on the said file and the Chief Engineer signed the note which was forwarded for taking further decision. The Law Department received the file on 28th August, 2007. In paragraph 3 of the application, it is set out as to what transpired after the file was received by the Law Department. The averments made in the application reveal that the file moved from one table to the another and finally on 26th September, 2007, a consent was given for preferring an appeal. Again there was a further delay as the file was moved for appointment of a Government Advocate only on 20th February, 2008 and the file was received by the Office of learned Advocate General on 26th February, 2008. The file was allotted to an Additional Government Advocate on 4th March, 2008. But the appeal was preferred on 12th June, 2009 after the department deposited the amount for court fees. 3 3. The learned Addl. Govt. Advocate invited my attention to the affidavits filed in support of the application for condonation of delay. He invited my attention to the affidavit of Executive Engineer Anil Ringne. My attention was also invited to the affidavit of the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate. It is submitted that there is more than sufficient explanation for the long delay. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents (original claimants) opposed the application. He submitted that there is a total neglect on the part of the officers of the State. He submitted that there is absolutely no explanation for the delay. He pointed out that there is a gross delay in applying for certified copy of the judgment and award and in forwarding the file to the State Government for taking a decision on the question of preferring an appeal. He pointed out that there is further delay at all stages, including gross delay in preferring an appeal after the decision was taken by the State Government to prefer an appeal. He has placed reliance on various decisions. He placed reliance on the decision in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer and anr. vs. Jose Prazeres de Piedade Pinto and ors., (2006 (1) Goa L.R. 437). He also placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of 4 Pundalik Jalam Patil (D) by LRs. vs. Exe. Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project & anr. (2008(6) Bom. C.R. 513). He also relied upon a decision of this Court in State of Maharashtra and ors., vs. Vithu Kalya Govari and ors., (2008(5) Bom.C.R. 323). Lastly he relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and ors. vs. Vidarbha Venaer Industries (1994 Supp (2) SCC 696). 4. I have considered the submissions. As far as the last segment of delay from 4th March, 2008 to 12th June, 2009 is concerned, there is an affidavit filed by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate. In the affidavit, the delay caused in the office of the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has been explained. There is no reason to disbelieve the statements made on oath by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate. The State Government cannot be blamed for the said delay. The explanation for delay from 26th September, 2007 to 20th February, 2008 may not be happily worded. There is a delay from 28th November, 2006 to 18th July, 2007 in making an application for obtaining certified copy of the judgment and award. The said delay has been explained in the affidavit of the Executive Engineer. It is contended that at the relevant time, the concerned officer was not aware about the disposal of the 5 reference. The Apex Court has repeatedly held that the court should adopt a liberal and justice oriented approach in deciding the applications for condonation of delay. Considering the affidavits placed on record, I am of the view that sufficient cause has been made out by the applicants. However, the respondents will have to be compensated by ordering payment of costs. The amount of costs is quantified at Rs.10,000/-. 5. Accordingly, Misc. Civil Application is disposed off by passing the following order : The application is allowed and the delay is condoned, subject to the applicants paying costs of Rs.10,000/- to the respondents within a period of six weeks from today. Deposit of the amount of costs in this Court within six weeks from today will be treated as sufficient compliance. A.S. OKA, J. ssm.