C.Review No. 60 of 2007 5.11.2008 Present: Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. A.G. for the petitioner. Mr. Ramesh Sharma, counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2. CMP(M) No. 710 of 2007 By means of this application the petitioner-applicant, i.e. State of H.P., has prayed that the delay of 1 year and 18 days in filing the petition for review may be condoned. Briefly stated the facts are that the State filed two Regular First Appeals, titled State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Mansa Ram. In one case the amount in dispute was Rs.43,758/- and in the other case was Rs.7,27,765/-. It is not now in dispute that in RFA No. 377 of 2006 which arose out of Land Reference No. 13-S/4 of 2005, the amount involved is Rs.7,27,765/-. It appears that when the appeals were being drafted, confused by the same name and also due to the fact that the date of award is the same in RFA No. 377 of 2006 the amount was reflected to be Rs.43,758/- instead of Rs.7,27,765/-. Resultantly, in RFA No. 342 of 2006 arising out of Land Reference No. 12-S/4 of 2005 the amount in dispute was shown to be Rs.7,27,765/- instead of Rs.43,758/-. Consequently, RFA No. 342 of 2006 was admitted on 21st July, 2007 and when RFA No. 377 of 2006 was listed before this Court the same was dismissed only on the ground that a paltry amount is involved in the same. It is obvious that this was an error apparent on the face of the record and the error occurred due to the mistake of the department in reflecting the disputed amounts in both the appeals. There has been delay of more than one year in filing the present review petition. The explanation given by the department is that the department came to know about the mistake only when the second execution petition was filed. According to Shri Ram Murti Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General, there were two departments involved, i.e. the Land Acquisition Department and the Acquiring Department and that there was a communication gap between the two departments and hence the mistake in reflecting the amounts in appeal could not be deducted at the earlier stage. This explanation on the face of it may be acceptable but on a deeper analysis it does not appear to be totally correct. When the respondent filed an execution petition in Land Reference No. 12-S/4 of 2005 the counsel appearing for the State informed the Court that the amount stands deposited. Thereafter on 19th January, 2007 execution petition was filed in Land Reference No. 13-S/4 of 2005. According to the department they came to be aware only some time in August, 2007 that the wrong appeal had been dismissed. This does not appear to be correct because earlier it had been clearly stated that the appeal arising out of Land Reference No.12-S/4 of 2005 had been admitted. The department should have been aware that one appeal has been admitted and one has been dismissed. If the appeal against Land Reference No.12-S/4 of 2005 had been admitted it was obvious appeal against Land Reference No.13-S/4 of 2005 had been dismissed. Therefore, there is some amount of negligence involved in pursuing the matter. However, keeping in view the fact that public funds are involved and also the fact that this Court has dismissed the first appeal without going into the merits of the case only on the ground that a paltry amount is involved, I feel that there is reasonable ground to condone the delay. The delay is accordingly condoned. However, this is subject to payment of Rs.2,000/- as costs. The costs to be paid to the H.P.High Court Bar Welfare Fund. The State shall be at liberty to recover the amount of costs from the erring official(s). Civil Review Petition No. 60 of 2007. For the reasons stated in the order passed in CMP(M) No. 710 of 2007 above, it is clear that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, the order dated 14.7.2006 dismissing the RFA No. 377 of 2006 in limine is recalled. The appeal be restored to its original number and be listed for admission after one week. November 5, 2008 ( Deepak Gupta ), J. ™