1 Civil Appln.No.6232.10+23 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD (1) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6232 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 8365 OF 2010 (IN L.A.R.NO. 1197 OF 2001) The Executive Engineer, Latur, M.I. Division,Latur. ...APPLICANT. (Ori. Respondent) VERSUS 1. Anant S/o Masnaji Holkar, Age 35 years,Occup.Agril., R/o Telgaon, Tq. Ahmedpur, District Latur.(Ori.Claimant) 2. The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Latur. ...RESPONDENTS. WITH (2) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6218 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 8850 OF 2010 (IN L.A.R.NO. 1214 OF 2001) The Executive Engineer, Latur, M.I. Division,Latur. ...APPLICANT. (Ori. Respondent) VERSUS 1. Namabai W/o Abasaheb Jadhav, Age 35 years,Occup.Agril., R/o Telgaon, Tq. Ahmedpur, District Latur.(Ori.Claimant) 2 Civil Appln.No.6232.10+23 2. The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Latur. ...RESPONDENTS. WITH (3) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6220 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 8874 OF 2010 (IN L.A.R.NO. 1222 OF 2001) The Executive Engineer, Latur, M.I. Division,Latur. ...APPLICANT. (Ori. Respondent) VERSUS 1. Rajendra S/o Shrihari Jadhav, Age 30 years,Occup. Agril., R/o Telgaon, Tq. Ahmedpur, District Latur.(Ori.Claimant) 2. The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Latur. ...RESPONDENTS. WITH (4) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6222 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 8801 OF 2010 (IN L.A.R.NO. 1217 OF 2001) The Executive Engineer, Latur, M.I. Division,Latur. ...APPLICANT. (Ori. Respondent) VERSUS 1. Anant S/o Ramrao Jadhav, Age 35 years,Occup. Agril., R/o Telgaon, Tq. Ahmedpur, District Latur.(Ori.Claimant) 3 Civil Appln.No.6232.10+23 2. The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Latur. ...RESPONDENTS. WITH (5) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6224 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 8813 OF 2010 (IN L.A.R.NO. 1199 OF 2001) The Executive Engineer, Latur, M.I. Division,Latur. ...APPLICANT. (Ori. Respondent) VERSUS 1. Vitthal S/o Ramrao Bembade, Age 60 years,Occup. Agril., R/o Telgaon, Tq. Ahmedpur, District Latur.(Ori.Claimant) 2. The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Latur. ...RESPONDENTS. WITH (6) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6226 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 8879 OF 2010 (IN L.A.R.NO. 1205 OF 2001) The Executive Engineer, Latur, M.I. Division,Latur. ...APPLICANT. (Ori. Respondent) VERSUS 1. Jijabai W/o baliram Bekare, Age 35 years,Occup. Agril., R/o Telgaon, Tq. Ahmedpur, District Latur.(Ori.Claimant) 4 Civil Appln.No.6232.10+23 2. The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Latur. ...RESPONDENTS. WITH (7) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6228 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 8819 OF 2010 (IN L.A.R.NO. 1209 OF 2001) The Executive Engineer, Latur, M.I. Division,Latur. ...APPLICANT. (Ori. Respondent) VERSUS 1. Sow Sitabai W/o Rameshwar Jadhav, Age Major,Occup. Agril., R/o Telgaon, Tq. Ahmedpur, District Latur.(Ori.Claimant) 2. The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Latur. ...RESPONDENTS. WITH (8) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6230 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 8844 OF 2010 (IN L.A.R.NO. 1220 OF 2001) The Executive Engineer, Latur, M.I. Division,Latur. ...APPLICANT. (Ori. Respondent) VERSUS 1. Harischandra S/o Haibatrao Jadhav, Age 65 years,Occup. Agril., R/o Telgaon, Tq. Ahmedpur, District Latur.(Ori.Claimant) 5 Civil Appln.No.6232.10+23 2. The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Latur. ...RESPONDENTS. WITH (9) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6234 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 8807 OF 2010 (IN L.A.R.NO. 1208 OF 2001) The Executive Engineer, Latur, M.I. Division,Latur. ...APPLICANT. (Ori. Respondent) VERSUS 1. Kishan S/o Yeshwantrao Jadhav, Age 65 years,Occup. Agril., R/o Telgaon, Tq. Ahmedpur, District Latur.(Ori.Claimant) 2. The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Latur. ...RESPONDENTS. WITH (10) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6236 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 8856 OF 2010 (IN L.A.R.NO. 1218 OF 2001) The Executive Engineer, Latur, M.I. Division,Latur. ...APPLICANT. (Ori. Respondent) VERSUS 1. Ramrao S/o Babarao Jadhav, Age 50 years,Occup.Agril., R/o Telgaon, Tq. Ahmedpur, District Latur. 6 Civil Appln.No.6232.10+23 2. Sanjeev S/o Trimbak, Age 30 years,Occup.Agril., R/o as above. 3. Datta Haibatrao Jadhav, Age 80 years,Occup.Agril., r/o as above. (Ori.Claimant) 4. The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Latur. ...RESPONDENTS. WITH (11) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6238 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 8810 OF 2010 (IN L.A.R.NO. 1200 OF 2001) The Executive Engineer, Latur, M.I. Division,Latur. ...APPLICANT. (Ori. Respondent) VERSUS 1. Haribhau S/o Digamber Madreshwar, Age 35 years,Occup.Agril., R/o Telgaon, Tq. Ahmedpur, District Latur. 2. Jagannath S/o Digamber Madreshwar, Age 30 years,Occup.Agril., R/o as above.(Ori.Claimant) 3. The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Latur. ...RESPONDENTS. WITH (12) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6240 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 8795 OF 2010 7 Civil Appln.No.6232.10+23 (IN L.A.R.NO. 1210 OF 2001) The Executive Engineer, Latur, M.I. Division,Latur. ...APPLICANT. (Ori. Respondent) VERSUS 1. Pandharinath S/o Govindrao Petakar, Age 60 years,Occup.Agril., R/o Telgaon, Tq. Ahmedpur, District Latur.(Ori.Claimant) 2. The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Latur. ...RESPONDENTS. WITH (13) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6242 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 8859 OF 2010 (IN L.A.R.NO. 1221 OF 2001) The Executive Engineer, Latur, M.I. Division,Latur. ...APPLICANT. (Ori. Respondent) VERSUS 1. Datta S/o Haibatrao Jadhav, Age 70 years, Occup.Agril., R/o Telgaon, Tq. Ahmedpur, District Latur.(Ori.Claimant) 2. The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Latur. ...RESPONDENTS. 8 Civil Appln.No.6232.10+23 WITH (14) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6244 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 8886 OF 2010 (IN L.A.R.NO. 1216 OF 2001) The Executive Engineer, Latur, M.I. Division,Latur. ...APPLICANT. (Ori. Respondent) VERSUS 1. Harischandra S/o Baibatrao Jadhav, 2. Shivraj Harischandra Jadhav, 3. Vitthal Harischandra Jadhav, 4. Pralhad Harischandra Jadhav, 5. Balaji Harischandra Jadhav, All Age Major, Occup.Agril., R/o Telgaon, Tq. Ahmedpur, District Latur.(Ori.Claimants) 6. The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Latur. ...RESPONDENTS. WITH (15) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6246 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 8853 OF 2010 (IN L.A.R.NO. 1211 OF 2001) The Executive Engineer, Latur, M.I. Division,Latur. ...APPLICANT. (Ori. Respondent) VERSUS 1. Trimbak S/o Baburao Jadhav Died his L.Rs. Sanjiv S/o Trimbak Jadhav, 9 Civil Appln.No.6232.10+23 Age 35 years, Occup.Agril., R/o Telgaon, Tq. Ahmedpur, District Latur.(Ori.Claimant) 2. The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Latur. ...RESPONDENTS. WITH (16) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6248 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 8802 OF 2010 (IN L.A.R.NO. 1204 OF 2001) The Executive Engineer, Latur, M.I. Division,Latur. ...APPLICANT. (Ori. Respondent) VERSUS 1. Kondiba S/o Taukaram Baikare, Age 26 years, Occup. Agril., R/o Telgaon, Tq. Ahmedpur, District Latur. 2. Mahadu S/o Taukaram Baikare, U/g of Shivubai W/o Tukaram Baikare, Age 40 years, Occup. Household, R/o Telgaon, Tq. Ahmedpur, District Latur.(Ori.Claimants) 3. The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Latur. ...RESPONDENTS. WITH (17) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6250 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 8847 OF 2010 (IN L.A.R.NO. 1201 OF 2001) 10 Civil Appln.No.6232.10+23 The Executive Engineer, Latur, M.I. Division,Latur. ...APPLICANT. (Ori. Respondent) VERSUS 1. Ramrao S/o Vithoba Bembade, Age 70 years, Occup. Agril., R/o Telgaon, Tq. Ahmedpur, District Latur.(Ori.Claimant) 2. The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Latur. ...RESPONDENTS. WITH (18) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6252 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 8841 OF 2010 (IN L.A.R.NO. 1212 OF 2001) The Executive Engineer, Latur, M.I. Division,Latur. ...APPLICANT. (Ori. Respondent) VERSUS 1. Dinanath S/o Ramrao Jadhav, Age Major, Occup. Agril., R/o Telgaon, Tq. Ahmedpur, District Latur. 2. Maroti S/o Ramrao Jadhav, Age Major, Occup. Agril., R/o as above. 3. Babarao S/o Ramrao Jadhav, Age Major, Occup. Agril., R/o as above.(Ori.Claimants) 11 Civil Appln.No.6232.10+23 4. The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Latur. ...RESPONDENTS. WITH (19) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6254 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 8871 OF 2010 (IN L.A.R.NO. 1219 OF 2001) The Executive Engineer, Latur, M.I.Division,Latur. ...APPLICANT. (Ori. Respondent) VERSUS 1. Kashinath S/o Vishwanath Jadhav, Age 45 years, Occup. Agril., R/o Telgaon, Tq. Ahmedpur, District Latur.(Ori.Claimant) 2. The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Latur. ...RESPONDENTS. WITH (20) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6256 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 8883 OF 2010 (IN L.A.R.NO. 1215 OF 2001) The Executive Engineer, Latur, M.I.Division,Latur. ...APPLICANT. (Ori. Respondent) VERSUS 1. Ravikant S/o Gangadhar Kanwate, Age 40 years, Occup. Agril., R/o Telgaon, Tq. Ahmedpur, District Latur.(Ori.Claimant) 12 Civil Appln.No.6232.10+23 2. The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Latur. ...RESPONDENTS. WITH (21) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6258 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 8863 OF 2010 (IN L.A.R.NO. 1206 OF 2001) The Executive Engineer, Latur, M.I.Division,Latur. ...APPLICANT. (Ori. Respondent) VERSUS 1. Kondiba S/oGovid Petkar, Age 70 years, Occup. Agril., R/o Telgaon, Tq. Ahmedpur, District Latur.(Ori.Claimant) 2. The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Latur. ...RESPONDENTS. WITH (22) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6260 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 8798 OF 2010 (IN L.A.R.NO. 1202 OF 2001) The Executive Engineer, Latur, M.I.Division,Latur. ...APPLICANT. (Ori. Respondent) VERSUS 1. Dattatrya S/o Sopan Bembade, Age 35 years, Occup. Agril., R/o Telgaon, Tq. Ahmedpur, District Latur. 13 Civil Appln.No.6232.10+23 2. Rajendra S/o Sopan Bembade, Age Major, Occup. Agril., R/o as above.(Ori.Claimants) 3. The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Latur. ...RESPONDENTS. WITH (23) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6262 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 8867 OF 2010 (IN L.A.R.NO. 1213 OF 2001) The Executive Engineer, Latur, M.I.Division,Latur. ...APPLICANT. (Ori. Respondent) VERSUS 1. Sanjeev S/o Trimbak Jadhav, Age 35 years, Occup. Agril., R/o Telgaon, Tq. Ahmedpur, District Latur. 2. Balaji S/o Bhaurao Jadhav, Age Major, Occup. Agril., R/o as above.(Ori.Claimants) 3. The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Latur. ...RESPONDENTS. WITH (24) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9168 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 8816 OF 2010 (IN L.A.R.NO. 1203 OF 2001) The Executive Engineer, Latur, M.I.Division,Latur. ...APPLICANT. (Ori. Respondent) 14 Civil Appln.No.6232.10+23 VERSUS 1. Kondiba Tukaram Baikare, Age 26 years, Occup. Agril., R/o Telgaon, Tq. Ahmedpur, District Latur. 2. Mahadu Tukaram Baikare, U/g Shivubai W/o Tukaram Baikare, Age Major, Occup. Agril., R/o as above.(Ori.Claimants) 3. The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Latur. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Smt.Geeta L.Deshpande,Advocate for Applicants. Shri.S.D.Kaldate,A.G.P.for respondent-State. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 16th SEPTEMBER, 2010. PER COURT : 1. By these applications the applicant-Original respondent No.2 seeks condonation of delay of 1013 days in filing the First Appeals against the Common Judgment and Award dated 09th March,2007, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ahmedpur, District Latur. 15 Civil Appln.No.6232.10+23 2. In the present case the Special Land Acquisition Officer(Hereinafter referred to as ”SLAO” for short) issued Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act ((Hereinafter referred to as ”said Act” for short) dated 4th April, 1996 for acquiring the respondents’-original claimants’ land from village Telgaon, Ta. Ahmedpur, District Latur., for Telgaon Minor Irrigation Tank (Right Canal). In the same order, the applicants took possession of the lands after following due process of law. The SLAO passed the award dated 21st October,1997 and awarded compensation in respect of the acquired land @ Rs.28,000/-(Rupees Twenty Eight Thousand) per Hector for the land coming under Group-I, Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand) Per Hector for the land coming under Group-II, Rs.33,500/-(Rupees Thirty three Thousand Five Hundred) Per Hector for the land coming under Group-III, Rs.37,500/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Thousand Five Hundred) Per Hector for the land coming under Group-IV. The respondents-original claimants accepted the 16 Civil Appln.No.6232.10+23 payment under protest on 30th March 1998. 3. Being aggrieved by the Award passed by the SLAO the respondents-Original claimants preferred References under Section 18 of the said Act for enhancement of compensation. In the said reference the claimants claimed compensation in respect of the acquired land @ Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs) per Hector. The Reference Court by its Judgment and order dated 9th March, 2007 awarded enhanced compensation in respect of acquired land @ Rs.70,000/- Per Hector, relying on the sale deeds at Exh. 29,30,31 and 65. In each matter the Reference Court awarded compensation @ Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand) Per Hector [One Hector =100 Are] as follows : Sr.No. LAR Nos. AcquiredArea by L.A.O. ARE Total Amount 1] 1197/2001 13 9100 2] 1199/2001 131 91700 3] 1200/2001 275 192500 4] 1201/2001 186 130200 5] 1202/2001 90 63000 17 Civil Appln.No.6232.10+23 6] 1203/2001 34 23800 7] 1204/2001 54 38500 8] 1205/2001 27 18900 9] 1206/2001 55 38500 10] 1208/2001 177 81900 11] 1209/2001 51 35700 12] 1210/2001 61 42700 13] 1211/2001 44 30800 14] 1212/2001 300 210000 15] 1213/2001 113 79100 16] 1214/2001 90 63000 17] 1215/2001 25 17500 18] 1216/2001 113 79100 19] 1217/2001 117 81900 20] 1218/2001 006 4200 21] 1219/2001 31 21700 22] 1220/2001 24 15800 23] 1221/2001 82 57400 24] 1222/2001 08 5600 4. Smt. Deshpande, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants states that, there is delay of 1013 days in preferring the preset First appeals, as the applicants were not aware of the proceedings before the SLAO. She further submits that Acquiring Body Godawari Marathwada Irrigation Department Corporation (Hereinafter referred to as “G.M.I.D.C.” for short) was not made party in the 18 Civil Appln.No.6232.10+23 proceedings. When the applicants came to know that the order is passed, they immediately took the steps to prefer the present Appeals. She further submits that, the delay is not intentional, but the same is caused because of the procedural requirements i. e. to take approval from the Higher Authority for preferring the Appeals in this Court. 5. She further submits that the applicants received a letter dated 13th October, 2007 from the Office of Government Pleader at Ahmedpur informing about the Judgment and Award passed by the Reference Court. Thereafter, they immediately applied for certified copies of the Judgment and Award passed by the Reference Court on 14th November, 2007, and same were ready for delivery on 23rd November, 2007, the applicants collected the said copies on same day. 6. Thereafter, on 2nd May, 2008 Acquiring Body-G.M.I.D.C. informed the applicant to verify 19 Civil Appln.No.6232.10+23 whether the State Government has preferred appeal against impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Reference Court. Pursuant to the said direction of Acquiring Body-applicants approached the office of Law and Judiciary Department and made inquiry with Joint Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department, Aurangabad, as well as in the office of Government Pleader, High Court, Bench at Aurangabad. Thereafter, on 24th February, 2009 the applicants communicated Acquiring Body G.M.I.D.C. about their inquiry in the offices of Law and Judiciary Department, Aurangabad as well as in the office of Government Pleader, High Court, Bench at Aurangabad. 7. On 18th August, 2009 the applicants handed over the copies of Judgment and Award passed by the Reference Court along with proposal of Acquiring Body to the concerned Counsel for preparing the First Appeals. Thereafter, these First Appeals filed in this Court on 24th March, 2010. 20 Civil Appln.No.6232.10+23 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicants submits that as they approached the department from time to time for taking approval to file the appeals in this Court, there was delay in preferring the First Appeals. The Counsel further submits that the applicants have good chance of success in the present First Appeals. The Reference Court awarded enhanced compensation to the respondents-Original Claimants without considering the evidence produced by the SLAO. She further submits that compensation awarded to the respondents-Original claimants is on higher side. Considering these facts the delay be condoned and matter be heard on its own merits. 9. We heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants at length. We have also perused the Judgment, order and Award passed by the Reference Court. 10. Before considering the merits of the present Civil Applications, it is to be noted that 21 Civil Appln.No.6232.10+23 Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 enables the Appellate Court to admit the appeal after prescribed period on the appellant-applicants’ satisfying the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal in time. It is satisfaction about sufficiency of the cause in not preferring the appeal in time, that confers jurisdiction to the Appellate Court for condoning delay in filing the appeal. If appellant-applicant does not show sufficient cause in preferring the appeal in time, the Court does not have the power to arbitrarily condone the delay in the matter on the ground of advancing substantial justice merely because the applicant-litigant happens to be the Corporation-Government. The law of limitation is the same for citizens and the Government Authority. Limitation Act does not provide for different period to the Government in filing Appeals. There is no separate standard for the Government from that of the citizen to determine the sufficient cause; though the factors, which are peculiar to the functioning of 22 Civil Appln.No.6232.10+23 the Government, may require pragmatic approach in justice oriented process. The Court when State and the Corporation are the applicants may give certain amount of latitude because of impersonal nature of the administrative working of the State- Corporation. 11. In the present case, it has to be noted that the Appeals are preferred in this Court by the original respondent No.2 i.e. the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. The applicant was respondent No. 2, in original proceeding. This shows that the Acquiring Body was fully represented before the Reference Court. At the time of filing these appeals, there was no application on the part of Acquiring Body for leave to file appeals. These appeals were filed as they were original Respondents in Reference proceedings. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants that Acquiring Body was not made party in the proceeding, and they were not aware about 23 Civil Appln.No.6232.10+23 the Judgment and Award passed by the Reference Court is not acceptable. 12. In the present case, the Reference Court passed Judgment and Award on 9th March, 2007 and thereafter by letter dated 17th October, 2007 the Government pleader at Ahmadpur had informed the applicants about Judgment and Award passed by the Reference Court. Thereafter, they filed an applications for certified copies of Judgment and Award on 14th November, 2007 and same were ready for delivery on 23th November, 2007 and also collected on same date. 13. Though, the applicants received the copies of Judgment and Award passed by the Reference Court on 23rd November, 2007, first time G.M.I.D.C. on 2nd May, 2008 directed the applicants to verify whether Government has filed any Appeal in this Court. There is no explanation for delay of 5 months from 23rd November, 2007 to 2nd May, 2008 in the present Civil Applications. 24 Civil Appln.No.6232.10+23 14. It is to be noted that the applicants took near about eight months to verify from the office of Law and Judiciary Department of State Government and also the office of Government Pleader High Court, Bench at Aurangabad, “as to whether Government has preferred any appeal in the present Case or not?” There is no explanation for this delay in this Civil Applications. 15. Though, Acquiring Body G.M.I.D.C. received certified copies of Judgment and Award from the applicants on 18th August, 2009, the applicants preferred First Appeal on 24th March, 2010 i.e. after about seven months. There is no explanation for this delay also in the present Civil Application. This itself shows that the applicants failed to disclose any sufficient cause for delay of 1013 days in preferring the present First Appeals. The Courts have no power to extend limitation prescribed by the statute unless sufficient cause is shown justifying the delay in preferring appeal after prescribed limitation 25 Civil Appln.No.6232.10+23 period. 16. After going through the Civil Applications preferred by the applicants for condonation of delay, it is crystal clear the applications are based on incorrect statement that the applicant was not aware of the Judgment and Award. Not only that in their Civil Applications in Para No. 3 it is stated that, ”On 3rd October, 2010, the Court fees received”, whereas present Civil Applications were filed in this Court on 24th March, 2010. The Apex Court in the matter of Pundlik Jalan Patil(D) by Lrs. Vs. The Executive Engineer Jalgaon Medium Project and another reported in 2008(6) ALL M.R. 954 held that dragging the land losers to Courts of law years after the termination of legal proceedings would not serve any public interest. The para No. 18, 23 and 24 of the said judgment read as follows : “18. In Ramlal and others vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. [AIR 1962 SC 361],this court held that: "in construing Section 5 of the 26 Civil Appln.No.6232.10+23 Limitation Act, it is relevant to bear in mind two important considerations. The first consideration is that the expiration of period of limitation prescribed for making an appeal gives rise to right in favour of the decree holder to treat the decree as binding between the parties and this legal right which has accrued to the decree holder by lapse of time should not be light heartedly disturbed. The other consideration which cannot be ignored is that if sufficient cause of excusing delay is shown discretion is given to the court to condone the delay and admit the appeal. `It is further necessary to emphasis that even if the sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the court by section 5. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage the diligence of the party of its bona fides may fall 27 Civil Appln.No.6232.10+23 for consideration." On the facts and in the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the respondent beneficiary was not diligent in availing the remedy of appeal. The averments made in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeals do not show any acceptable cause much less sufficient cause to exercise courts' discretion in its favour.” "23. Public interest undoubtedly is a paramount consideration in exercising the courts discretion wherever conferred upon it by the relevant statutes. Pursuing stale claims and multiplicity of proceedings in no manner sub-serves public interest. Prompt and timely payment of compensation to the land losers facilitating their rehabilitation/ resettlement is equally an integral part of public policy. Public interest demands that the State or the beneficiary of acquisition, as the case may be, should not be allowed to indulge in any act to unsettle the settled legal rights accrued in law by 28 Civil Appln.No.6232.10+23 resorting to avoidable litigation unless the claimants are guilty of deriving benefit which otherwise not entitled in law in any fraudulent manner. One should not forget the basic fact that what is acquired is not the land but the livelihood of the land losers. These public interest parameters ought to be kept in mind by the courts while exercising the discretion dealing with the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Dragging the land losers to courts of law years after the termination of legal proceedings would not serve any public interest. Settled rights cannot be lightly interfered with by condoning inordinate delay without there being any proper explanation of such delay on the ground of involvement of public revenue. It serves no public interest.” “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 29 Civil Appln.No.6232.10+23 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 proved 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.” 17. Considering the above mentioned facts, circumstances and the well settled law on the issue under consideration, we find that the applicants failed to disclose sufficient cause for 30 Civil Appln.No.6232.10+23 condoning the delay of 1013 days in preferring the present appeals. Therefore, the applications being devoid of merit, are dismissed with no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] MTK