1 c.a.17165.10+2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17165 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO. 21155 OF 2010 1. The State of Maharashtra and another ...PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. Sidram @ Gorakh Tippa Suryawanshi and others ...RESPONDENTS. WITH C.A.NO.17167 OF 2010 IN F.A.ST.NO.21152 OF 2010 C.A.NO.17169 OF 2010 IN F.A.ST.NO.21142 OF 2010 ... Shri.K.M.Suraywanshi, A.G.P.for Applicant-State ... CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 16th DECEMBER,2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned AGP for the appellant. 2. These Civil Applications are preferred by the Applicant-State of Maharashtra for condonation of 2 c.a.17165.10+2 1093 days delay in preferring the Appeals against the common Judgment and Award dated 27th April, 2007 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Omerga, District Osmanabad in Land Acquisition References. FEW FACTS OF THE MATTER ARE AS UNDER: 3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer issued notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 04th March, 1993 for acquiring respondents-Original Claimants land from village Kolsur, Tq. Omarga,District Osmanabad. After following due process of law, Special Land Acquisition Officer passed award and awarded compensation in respect of acquired land. 4. Being aggrieved by the said Award, respondents-original Claimants preferred References under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In those References, the Reference Court awarded compensation in favour of 3 c.a.17165.10+2 the claimants as follows: Sr.No. Civil Application Numbers Addl.Amount awarded by the Reference Court in respect of Lands. Rs.= Ps 1] 17165/2010 2100=00 2] 17167/2010 700=00 3] 17169/2010 1250=00 The said calculations stated by the applicant in their First Appeal on page No. 5 under the Caption of Foot Note. 4. Mr. Suryawanshi, learned AGP appearing for the applicant submits that they received intimation-sanction from Law and Judiciary Department on 1st August, 2007 for filing the present Appeal. Thereafter, the matters were assigned to the concerned AGP on 2nd August, 2007 for drafting. He further submits that concerned AGP prepared Appeal Memo immediately. At the time of filing these Appeals, their office learned that the Concerned Officer has not forwarded the 4 c.a.17165.10+2 certified copies of the judgment and Award passed by the Reference Court, typed copies of Judgment and Court fees etc. Therefore, Government pleader called upon the concerned Officer to furnish immediately certified copies of Judgment and Award and other relevant documents along with Court fees. 5. The learned AGP further submits that Office of the Government Pleader Aurangabad received the same on 13th August, 2008 and certified copies along with typed copies of Judgment and Award passed by the Reference Court on 30th September, 2009. He submits that as there was delay on the part of concerned Officer to forward the copies of the Judgment and Award, court fees etc, to the office of Government Pleader for filing these appeals immediately. He submits that the delay is not intention one,but the same is caused due to procedure prescribed for filing the appeals on behalf of the Government. 5 c.a.17165.10+2 6. I have gone through the Civil Applications as well as Judgment and Award passed by the Reference Court. The applicant failed to disclose the day on which they applied for certified copies of judgment and when they received certified copies, when concerned District Government Pleader forwarded his opinion to Law and Judiciary Department for preferring the Appeals, when the Law and Judiciary Department decided it to prefer the appeals and send letter to that effect. All these facts are relevant to consider the present Civil Application for condonation of 1093 days delay. Apart from that in the present case amount enhanced by the Reference Court is not more than Rs.3000/-(Rupees Three Thousand). 7. I have gone through the averments of Civil Applications for condonation of delay. I am of the opinion that applicant failed to disclose any sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Our High Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Vithu Kalya Govari and others 6 c.a.17165.10+2 reported in 2008(5) Bom.C.R.323 held that if applicant failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay, then they are not entitled for the relief as claimed. Para No. 12 of the said judgment reads as under. “12. Before these files are consigned to record room, the Courts cannot help but notice that most of the appeals filed on behalf of the State are barred by time and the delay normally is inordinate. They suffer from defect of inordinate delay. Normally, it is expected of the State, in the modern times and with modern amenities and infra- structure, to govern its affairs to the much expected standards. It hardly stands to reason that most of the appeals filed by the State, particularly in land acquisition matters, should be barred by time. They are filed after much delay and normally after considerable delay which remains unexplained and is ex facie unjustified. Filing of appeal within limitation is an exception but filing appeals barred by time is the rule. Filing appeal in a mechanical 7 c.a.17165.10+2 manner beyond the period of limitation has become a rule. This needs to be checked by the concerned authorities at the earliest. Unreasonable delay on the part of the concerned authority in completion of execution proceedings, disbursement of compensation, determination of compensation and 31 then in filing legal proceedings include the appeals invites twin disadvantages that are opposed to public policy and even good governance. Firstly, even in good cases because of inordinate and unexplained delay, the Court may decline to entertain the appeals. Secondly, the liability of statutory interest increases every passing day which burdens the public exchequer. Both these adverse rigors could be avoided by timely and co-ordinate actions. The authorities are required to have a more practical and pragmatic approach to provide solution to this problem. The inordinate delays occurring from inaction or non-co- operation of the departments, as is demonstrated by the facts of the present cases, needs to be corrected 8 c.a.17165.10+2 and it will be desirable to fix the responsibility of the erring officer/official. The concept of public accountability for default of performance of statutory and public duties relatable to the powers vested in the authorities under the Act or other administrative authorities, is squarely applicable. In the case of Mahender Kumar vs. Land Acquisition Collector (2006) 5 AD 420, the Court after discussing various judgments of the Supreme Court in great detail held that actions of administrative authorities are accountable and doctrine of full pay and credit is applicable in discharge of their duties. Their actions, besides being open to judicial review, would attract judicial chasticism if there is complete negligence and non- cooperation in functioning of the authority merely in furtherance to statutory powers. The doctrine of public accountability would require authorities to act timely and be responsible for their acts. Development of law which has even extended to which the State is liable 9 c.a.17165.10+2 to compensate for loss or injury suffered by a citizen due to arbitrary action of employees of the State. Reference can be made to the case of Lucknow Development Authority vs. M. K. Gupta, (1994) I SCC 243. In the case in hand, we have already noticed that there is not even an iota of explanation rendered for complete non- cooperation and inordinate delay of more than two years. In fact, in one case, there is not even an indication as to what steps were taken with effect from 29th June 2005 to 3rd March 2007 i.e. for nearly two years in C.A. No.3200 of 2007 while with effect from 24th June 2005 to 15th May 2007 in C.A. No. 5422 of 2008, there is not even an averment in that action or step was taken by any concerned authority during this long period which ultimately resulted in delay of more than 2 years and 45 days in filing of these appeals. Somebody has to own this responsibility. It is expected of the competent authority to fix responsibility of the erring officer/officials and to provide proper guidelines. Thus, while 10 c.a.17165.10+2 dismissing these Civil Applications/ Appeals, we feel duty bound to issue certain directions to the Respondent State. Thus, the following directions are issued : (a) The State Government shall constitute a Committee presided over by the Chief Secretary of the State, which shall issue guidelines to ensure that appeals on behalf of the State in land acquisition matters are filed within the prescribed period of limitation.No. of Page (b) Under the directions/guidelines issued through appropriate Government Resolution, complete time frame should be provided for applying and/or receiving certified copies, preparation of appeals, sanctioning of requisite funds, drawing up and filing of appeals. (c) These guidelines should also provide for due co-operation and co-ordination between different Departments of the State Government. 11 c.a.17165.10+2 (d) Concerned authorities may also examine constituting a `centralised nodal office' to ensure timely filing of appeals in the High Court so as to avoid any consequences adverse to the interest of the State including burdening the public exchequer. (e) The guidelines so framed shall also introduce the principle of public accountability and answerability or inaction/action of various authorities in the State hierarchy in such cases and for inordinate delay in filing the present cases, the State Government shall fix responsibility and take action in accordance with law. ” 8. Considering explanation given in the present Civil Applications and decision of our High Court Maharashtra and others Vs. Vithu Kalya Govari and others reported in 2008(5) Bom.C.R.323, cited supra I am of the opinion that the applicant- State failed to disclose sufficient cause for condonation of 1093 days delay in preferring the 12 c.a.17165.10+2 Appeal against the impugned Judgment and Award dated 27th April, 2007 passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition References. Thus the Civil Applications are dismissed. Sd/- [K.K. TATED, J.] MTK