1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.808 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.768 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra ... APPLICANT VERSUS Bhimashankar s/o Mallikarjunappa Katkar ... RESPONDENT ----- Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for the applicant Shri S.G. Kawade, Advocate holding for Shri V.D. Salunke, Advocate for the respondent ----- CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 3rd September, 2010. ORAL ORDER : 1. Perused. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant for condonation of delay of 4385 days caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal against the judgment and order dated 21.10.1995, passed by learned Jt. District Judge, Beed in Land Acquisition Reference. 2 3. After hearing the rival submissions advanced by both the learned counsel for respective parties, it is apparent that, although the judgment and order was passed on 21.10.1995, which is sought to be challenged in the accompanying First Appeal, the applicant has failed to mention the date on which the applicant applied for certified copy thereof and on which date the same was ready for delivery and on which date it was collected by the applicant. Moreover, although it is averred in the present application that in pursuance of directions issued by this Court in First Appeal No.1036/2002 on 21.2.2003 the Committee took the decision to file the First Appeal on 28.5.2004, the applicant filed the present appeal in the year 2008 and even the said delay of almost 4 years has not been explained by the applicant properly and satisfactorily. In the said context, reliance can be placed on the ratio laid down and observations made by the Division Bench headed by Hon’ble the Chief Justice of this Court in the case reported at 2008(6) Mh.L.J. 239 (State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Vithu Kalya Govari and others), in which it has been observed as under : “ 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 occurred because of “official hassle” and 3 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 In law advantage has accrued to the non-applicants claimants and the same ought not to be withdrawn in a mechanical manner and that too without any sufficient cause being shown by the applicants.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.” 4. Moreover, reliance can also be placed on the ratio laid down by 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.) by judgment dated 3.11.2008, in which it is observed in paragraph No.24 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 4 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 sugget 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.” 5. In the circumstances, present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be dismissed. 6. In the result, present Civil Application stands dismissed. Registration of First Appeal stands refused. Court fee be refunded as per rules. [SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] fmp/ca808.08