1 c.a.10334.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10334 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 17817 OF 2009 1. The State of Maharasthra Through -The Collector, Latur, 2. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division,Latur. 3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Suwarna Project, Latur. ..Applicants/ appellants (Orig. Respondents) VERSUS 1. Panditrao S/o Bhagwanrao Kardile, Age 62 Years,Occup.Advocate, R/o Latur, Tq. And District Latur. ..Respondent (Orig. Claimant ) ..... Shri B.J.Sonwane, advocate for the applicants Shri S.S.Manale, advocate for respondent Ori- claimant. .... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 28th JANUARY, 2011. 2 c.a.10334.09 WITH C.A. NO. 10336 OF 2009 IN F.A.ST.18294 OF 2009 C.A. NO. 10338 OF 2009 IN F.A.ST.18291 OF 2009 C.A. NO. 10340 OF 2009 IN F.A.ST.18288 OF 2009 C.A. NO. 10342 OF 2009 IN F.A.ST.18284 OF 2009 C.A. NO. 10344 OF 2009 IN F.A.ST.18281 OF 2009 C.A. NO. 10346 OF 2009 IN F.A.ST.18278 OF 2009 C.A. NO. 10348 OF 2009 IN F.A.ST.18275 OF 2009 C.A. NO. 10350 OF 2009 IN F.A.ST.18305 OF 2009 C.A. NO. 10352 OF 2009 IN F.A.ST.18302 OF 2009 C.A. NO. 10354 OF 2009 IN F.A.ST.18297 OF 2009 PER COURT : 1. Perused the applications and Affidavit-in- reply filed by the respondent-Original claimant. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The applicant/appellants have preferred the present applications for condonation of delay of 786 days in filing the accompanying First Appeals under Stamp challenging the Judgment and Award, dated 28th March, 2007, passed by the Reference Court. 3. It is the contention of the applicants- appellants that accompanying First Appeals have been preferred by the applicants - appellants 3 c.a.10334.09 challenging the Judgment and Award dated 28th March, 2007, passed by IInd Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division) Latur, in Land Acquisition References. It is also contention of the applicants - appellants that after delivery of said Judgment on 28th March, 2007, the concerned AGP has intimated to the office of the applicants, and thereafter the applicants approached to the concerned AGP Office, which gave legal opinion to the Hon’ble Joint Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department, Aurangabad and recommended to file Appeals against the Judgment and order passed by the learned Reference Court. It is further contention of the applicants- appellants that thereafter the proposal sent by the concerned AGP was scrutinized by office of the Law and Judiciary Department, Aurangabad and it was forwarded to the Office of Government Pleader, High Court, Bench at Aurangabad by its letter dated 21.06.2008 for filing appeals. Thereafter, the Government Pleader Office allotted the said proposal along with other proposal for drafting to the concerned AGP on 23.06.2008. Accordingly, 4 c.a.10334.09 Appeal Memo was drafted immediately. However, while scrutinizing the said proposal, certified copy of Judgment and Award, Difference Chart and typed copies of Judgment and Award, Court fees were not accompanied with the proposal. Hence, AGP has communicated to the concerned Authorities and requested to forward the copies by letter dated 03.07.2008. In response to the above communication, certified copies of Judgment and Award was received on 19.12.2008 and typed copies of Judgment and Award are received on 19.12.2008 and difference Chart is received on 21.01.2009. 4. It is submitted that, although Appeal Memo was drafted immediately, same could not filed in Registry of this Court, due to non supply of aforesaid documents, which resulted delay caused in filing of Appeal, it is not intentional but is caused because of administrative difficulty and for the reasons beyond control of the authorities. The applicants - Appellants further contended that applicants have sound case on merit and they are 5 c.a.10334.09 sanguine of success in the accompanying Appeals, and hence prayed that delay caused in preferring accompanying Appeals be condoned in the interest of justice. 5. Mr. Manale, learned counsel for respondents- Original claimants vehemently opposed the present applications and submitted that delay caused in preferring accompanying First Appeals is inordinate delay of 786 days and the applicants have failed to account for the said delay properly. 6. It is further canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondents - Original claimants that the procedural aspect, administrative ground and official hassle cannot be the ground for condonation of delay and relied upon the observations made by Division Bench of this court headed by Honourable Chief Justice in the case reported at 2008(4) All.MR 856 [State of Maharashtra and others vs Vithu Kalya Govari and others]. 6 c.a.10334.09 7. The learned counsel for the respondents- Original claimants also relied upon the observations made Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Singh (Dead) Vs. Jagdish Singh and others reported in 2010(6) All MR.480, to explain the delay with cogent reasons and reliance can be very much placed on the observations, which reads as under : “The purpose of introducing liberal construction normally is to introduce the concept of `reasonableness' as it is understood in its general connotation. The law of limitation is a substantive law and has definite consequences on the right and obligation of a party to arise. These principles should be adhered to and applied appropriately depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case. Once a valuable right, as accrued in favour of one party as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to 7 c.a.10334.09 take away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must be done to both parties equally. Then alone the ends of justice can be achieved. If a party has been thoroughly negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to deprive the other party of a valuable right that has accrued to it in law as a result of his acting vigilantly. The application filed by the applicants lack in details. Even the averments made are not correct and ex-facie lack bona fide. The explanation has to be reasonable or plausible, so as to persuade the Court to believe that the explanation rendered is not only true, but is worthy of exercising judicial discretion in favour of the applicant. If it does not specify any of the enunciated ingredients of judicial pronouncements, then the application should be dismissed. On the other hand, if the application 8 c.a.10334.09 is bona fide and based upon true and plausible explanations, as well as reflect normal behaviour of a common prudent person on the part of the applicant, the Court would normally tilt the judicial discretion in favour of such an applicant. Liberal construction cannot be equated with doing injustice to the other party.” 8. Learned counsel for the respondents - Original claimants further submitted that the applicants have miserably failed to explain the delay properly and, therefore, submitted that there is no substance in the present applications and same are devoid of any merits and it be rejected. 9. Considering the rival submissions, at the out set, although Judgment and Award was passed on 28.03.2007, present applications are silent on which date present applicants - appellants applied for certified copies thereof and when said certified copies were ready and on which date same were collected by the applicants. Besides, taking 9 c.a.10334.09 into consideration the contents of the applications and averments made by the applicants -appellants as it is, as stated by the applicants-appellants, difference Chart was received on 21.01.2009, but the accompanying First Appeals came to be filed after substantial period of seven months, on 20.08.2009 but there is no explanation in the present application in respect of the said delay of about seven months. 10. Moreover, Division Bench of this Court headed by then Honourable Chief Justice has observed in the case reported at 2008(6) Mh.L.J.239 [State of Maharashtra and others vs Vithu Kalya Govari and others] that official hassle is no ground for the condonation of delay and reliance can very well be placed on the observations made in the same case as follows :- “ 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. 10 c.a.10334.09 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.” 11. Moreover, 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 cogent reasons and reliance can be very much placed on the observations made in paragraph 11 c.a.10334.09 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 suggest 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.” 12. In the circumstances, applying the said parameters, in the instant case, it is apparently clear that the procedural aspects, administrative grounds and official hassles cannot be construed 12 c.a.10334.09 as ground for condonation of delay. Besides, it is apparent that there is laxity on the part of the applicant/s and if the present applications are allowed, prejudice would certainly be caused to the respondents. 13. Hence, considering the factual aspects as well as the legal position, it is apparent that present applications bear no substance and same are devoid of any merits and same deserve to be rejected and, therefore, same stand rejected accordingly. Leave to file appeal stands refused. The court fee be refunded to the applicant/s as per rules. Sd/- ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. ) MTK.