1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.432 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL (Stamp) No.24936 OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra ..applicant-appellant versus Eknath Ahilaji Avhad .. respondent-claimant WITH C.A. No.433 of 2007 In First Appeal (St.) No.24899 of 2006 The State of Maharashtra ..applicant-appellant versus Dhondiram Bhaurao Avhad & anr. ..respondents-claimants WITH C.A. No.434 of 2007 In First Appeal (St.) No.24921 of 2006 The State of Maharashtra ..applicant-appellant Versus Smt. Gangubai Shankar Avhad & ors. ..respondents-claimants WITH C.A. No.435 of 2007 In First Appeal (St.) No.24859 of 2006 The State of Maharashtra ..applicant-appellant versus Suryabhan Abaji Khambayat (deceased) through legal representatives : - Tanyabai Suryabhan Kambayat & ors. ..respondents-climants. WITH C.A. No.436 of 2007 In First Appeal (St.) No.24913 of 2006 The State of Maharashtra ..applicant-appellant versus Bhanudas Ahilaji Avhad & anr. ..respondents-claimants 2 WITH C.A. No.437 of 2007 In First Appeal (St.) No.24892 of 2006 The State of Maharashtra .. applicant-appellant versus Prakash Bhanudas Avhad and ors. ..respondents-claimants WITH C.A. No.438 of 2007 In First Appeal (St.) No.24894 of 2006 The State of Maharashtra ..applicant-appellants versus Babaibai Maruti Khade .. respondents-claimant WITH C.A. No.439 of 2007 In First Appeal (St.) No.24930 of 2006 The State of Maharashtra .. applicant-appellant versus Ramu Bhivsen Avhad .. respondent-claimant -------- Shri Kishor G. Patil, A.G.P. for the applicant-State. Shri P.R. Nangare, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to 6 in C.A. No.435/07 in FAST No.24859/2006. Respondents in other matters, although served, are absent. Coram : Shrihari P. Davare, J. Date : 27th August, 2010. P.C. 01. Perused. Heard learned A.G.P. for the applicant and learned counsel for Respondents in C.A. No.435/2007 in First Appeal (St.) No. 24859 of 2006. 3 02. The applicant has preferred the present applications for condonation of delay of 2850 days caused in filing the accompanying first appeals which are on stamp numbers, challenging the judgments and awards dated 27.11.1998 separately passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.100, 106, 102, 103, 173, 101,95 and 104 of 1987. 03. Learned A.G.P. submits that after passing the impugned judgments and awards, the applicant applied for certified copies thereof and thereafter submitted the proposal to the Law and Judiciary Department for sanction through the office of the Government Pleader. The Law and Judiciary Department sanctioned the proposal and forwarded it to the office of the Government Pleader. Thereafter, the Government Pleader assigned the First Appeals for drafting to concerned A.G.P. Accordingly, concerned A.G.P. drafted the First Appeals, but could not file immediately because the certified copies of the impugned judgments and 4 awards were not received to the office of the Government Pleader, High Court, Bench at Aurangabad. Therefore, letters were sent to the concerned authorities. Thereafter, certified copies were delivered to the office of the Government Pleader on 17.1.2006 and accordingly, accompanying First Appeals came to be filed. Hence, it is submitted that the delay caused in filing the accompanying First Appeals is due to time consumed in administrative procedure and also due to heavy work load and non-availability of certified copies and difference chart and, therefore, it is submitted that the said delay is not wilful, deliberate and intentional. 04. Learned counsel for the Respondents opposed the present applications vehemently and submitted that the official hassles and administrative procedure are no grounds for condonation of delay and relied upon the observations made in the case reported at 2008 (6) Mh.L.J., State of Maharashtra & others vs. Vithu Kalya Govari and others, delivered by the Division 5 Bench of this Court, and also upon the observations made 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. It is further submitted that the present applications bear no substance and are devoid of any merits and same deserve to be rejected. 05. On perusal of the averments made in the present applications and also after considering the rival contentions of both the parties, at the out set, it is seen that although the judgments and awards were passed on 27.11.1998, the applicant applied for certified copies thereof on 6.7.2004 i.e. almost after 5-1/2 years and no satisfactory reasons have been put forward by the applicant for the said delay in applying the certified copies. 06. Moreover, it is now settled principle that official hassles and administrative procedure are no grounds for condonation of delay and reliance can be very well placed on the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court headed by Hon'ble 6 Chief Justice in the case reported at 2008 (6) Mh.L.J. 239, State of Maharashtra and ors. vs. Vithu Kalya Govari and ors (supra)., 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. The applicants in their application have stated that delay occured 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 received 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." 7 07. Moreover, recently 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 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 Government 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 8 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." 08. 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 as ground for condonation of delay. Besides, it is apparent that there is laxity on the part of the applicant and if the present applications are allowed, prejudice would certainly be caused to the respondents. 09. Hence, considering the factual position as well as the legal position, it is apparent that present applications bear no substance and same are 9 devoid of any merits and same deserve to be rejected and, therefore, same stand rejected accordingly. The court fee be refunded to the applicant, as per rules. (Shrihari P. Davare, J.) pnd/ca432.07