1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12073 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12075 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12077 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12079 OF 2010 WITH Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders Mr.S.D.Kaldate, learned A.G.P. for State. Mr.V.G.Sakolkar, learned counsel for respondent. CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J. DATE : 15/11/2011 By these applications, the appellant/State of Maharashtra has approached this Court for condonation of delay of 813 days to challenge the judgment and award passed by the Civil Judge, S.D. Ahmedpur, camp at Udgir, Dist. Latur in LAR Nos.21/2004, 24/2004, 29/2004 and 30/2004, which were disposed of by common judgment dated 18/02/2008. Learned A.G.P. has relied upon the observations of the Apex Court in the matter of State of Karnataka versus Y.Moideen Kunhi (dead) by LR.s and others, AIR 2009 SC 2577, wherein it is specifically mentioned that, “the expression 2 ‘sufficient cause’ as appearing in Section 5 of The Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (in short the ‘Limitation Act’) must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice as was noted by this court in G.Ramegowda, Major etc. V. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Banglore (AIR 1988 SC 897), para no.8 of the judgment reads as follows. “The law of limitation is no doubt, the same for a private citizen as for governmental authorities. Government, like any other litigant must take responsibility for the acts or omissions of its officers. But a somewhat different complexion is imparted to the matter where Government makes out a case where public interest was shown to have suffered owing to acts of fraud or bad faith on the part of its officers or agents and where the officers were clearly at cross-purposes with it.” It is also observed that, ”certain cases are classic example where the circumstances are the same, where the excessive lands are involved out of which according to the State some were acquired by the State for the public purpose. The same cannot be rendered ineffective by skillful 3 management of delay in the process of making challenge to the order which prima facie does not appear to be legally sustainable.” The ground raised to condone the delay is that even though the proposal was forwarded by the A.G.P. from the Office of Government Pleader of this Court in due time and with all caution, even then because of some mis- management of the Sanctioning Authorities, the proposals were not sanctioned within the due time. Considering this aspect, for the grounds raised in all the applications, which are sufficient to make it clear that the office of Government Pleader of this Bench is not at fault, but the delay was caused due to certain administrative factors, in the interest of public at large, it is necessary to condone the delay. In view of this, all these applications are allowed in terms of prayer clause A & B and stand disposed of. Office to register the accompanied appeals. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/Nov. 2011/ca12073-10