The State Of Maharashtra And Ors vs Sanjay Gurappa Zambre
2021 Latest Caselaw 8805 Bom

                                                              CA-14691-2018, 14693-2018.odt


                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14691 OF 2018
                                IN FAST/35221/2018

                       THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
                                     VERSUS
                           VISHNU PANDURANG JADHAV

                                       WITH
                        CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14693 OF 2018
                                IN FAST/35226/2018

                                   ..........
Mr. B. V. Virdhe, AGP for applicants - State.
Mr. V. V. Ingle and Mr. P. B. Rakhunde, Advocates for respondent.
                                   ..........

                                    CORAM           : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.

Reserved on : 19.06.2021 Pronounced on : 06.07.2021

ORDER :-

. Present civil applications have been filed for condoning the delay

of 2248 days in filing the first appeals.

2. Heard both sides. In order to cut short it can be said both of them

have made submissions in support of their respective contentions.

3. This Court by order dated 08.04.2021 had specifically observed

that the delay of 2248 days is definitely inordinate and there is no

explanation offered in the application for a huge delay of 5 ½ years to

make application for certified copy. It was also observed that this Court

CA-14691-2018, 14693-2018.odt

may consider imposition of heavy costs to be recovered from the erring

officer in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of

Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bherulal, [(2020) 10 SCC 654], however, an

opportunity was given to the Government to explain the delay. The

applicant was asked to file affidavit in support of the application for

delay condonation. Pursuant to the said order, affidavit of Naib

Tahsildar, SDO Office, Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad, namely, Mohan

Dhondiram Panchal has been produced. In the affidavit, it is stated that

the judgment and award in the matter was passed by the reference

Court on 25.06.2012, thereafter, the Deputy Collector prepared appeal

proposal and had sent it to the Law and Judiciary Department in the

year 2013. The Law and Judiciary Department by letter number

829/2013 dated 13.03.2013 approved the proposal to file appeal before

this Court. After the proposal from Law and Judiciary Department was

received, the office of the Government Pleader of this Bench issued letter

dated 15.03.2013 and demanded the certified copies of the judgment

and order in three sets. Thereafter, the Government applied for the

copies of the judgment and order and it appears that it went through the

channel of communication from Government office to Deputy Collector

and then Deputy Collector contended that the said office has been

closed down by the Government. All those matters were then

CA-14691-2018, 14693-2018.odt

transferred to the Sub Divisional Officer, Omerga by letter dated

15.03.2016 and 22.04.2016. After scrutinizing the files, when it was

found that the certified copies were not applied or are not forming part

of the record, they had applied for the certified copies once again on

02.12.2017. On the same day, those copies were received and sent to

the Government Pleader's office of this Court on 09.04.2018.

Thereafter, the appeal was drafted along with the civil application for

condonation of delay. It has been tried to be submitted that in view of

the accompanying documents, the delay is not intentional and the

record itself was not traceable in view of lapse of about 10 years.

6. Learned Advocate appearing for the respondents has filed the

affidavit-in-reply denying all the said contentions. Learned Advocate for

respondents has submitted that whatever reasons those have been tried

to be assigned cannot be said to be sufficient much less reasonable to

condone the delay.

7. The reasons given by affiant Mohan Dhondiram Panchal, the Naib

Tahsildar, appears to be based on the documents those he could trace

out. However, it is to be noted that when he has used the words 'once

again applied for the certified copy' that presupposes that in the past

there was an attempt and in fact the certified copies of the judgment

and award were received by the Government. In fact, without going

CA-14691-2018, 14693-2018.odt

through the judgment and record how the Law and Judiciary

Department had given approval to file appeal itself is a question and

then why the copies of the judgment and award were not attached to

the order is a question. Again then the Assistant Government Pleader of

this office was required to make communication and demand the

documents. It appears that, that communication was not taken seriously.

There is total lethargy on the part of the Government servants dealing

with the case. By order dated 15.08.2013, the office of Deputy

Collector, Land Acquisition No.1, Osmanabad was closed down. The

copy of the said order has been produced which shows that the charge

was given to the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhoom and it was lay down by

the District Collector, Osmanabad as to who would be the authority who

would look after the remaining matters. But then after the said order

was passed on 14.08.2013 it appears that till 15.03.2016 no action was

taken on the communication dated 20.04.2013 by learned AGP, Nilanga

to Deputy Collector, Manjra Project, Osmanabad. Merely, by saying that

the office was closed down, the responsibility of the

persons/government servants will not end. In fact, it was then the

responsibility of the officers to whom the charge was given by order

dated 14.08.2013 to comply with the formalities in pursuant to the

sanction given for filing appeal. Therefore, the affidavit, which is now

CA-14691-2018, 14693-2018.odt

filed in pursuance to the order passed by this Court on 08.04.2021;

which in fact ought to have been filed along with the application itself,

does not explain the delay of 2248 days and, therefore, the application

deserves to be rejected.

8. This Court in State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Damu Manaji

Kokani, Civil Application No.15424 of 2017 and the group of matters

decided on 04.01.2018 had taken note of all the earlier decisions by this

Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court. Few of them can be referred

here. In Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by LRs Vs. Executive Engineer Jalgaon

Medium Project and Another, [2008 (17) SCC 448], the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has held that "pursuing stale claims and multiplicity of

proceedings in no manner sub-surves public interest. 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. Though the State or its instrumentalites seeking

condonation of delay may be entitled to certain amount of latitude, but

CA-14691-2018, 14693-2018.odt

the law of limitation is same for citizen and for Governmental agencies."

Same ratio was laid down in Registrar of Companies Vs. Rajashree

Sugar and Chemicals Ltd. and Ors., [(2000) 6 SCC 133].

Further, in Basawaraj and Another Vs. The Special Land

Acqusition Officer, [2013 (14) SCC 81], Hon'ble Supreme Court

observed that "the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that

where a case has been presented in the Court beyond limitation, the

applicant has to explain the Court as to what was the "sufficient cause"

which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to

approach the Court within limitation. In case a party is found to be a

negligent, or for want of bonafide on his part in the facts and

circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or

remain inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay.

No Court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by

imposing any condition whatsoever."

Further, in State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs. Vithu Kalya Govari

and Ors., [2008 (6) Mh.L.J. 239], the Division Bench of this Court

observed that "the State is not expected to be in negligent or to take no

action for years and let the matters become time barred on account of

its negligence and inaction. The usual reason of "official hassle" or

"approval at different levels" is hardly sufficient to justify condonation

CA-14691-2018, 14693-2018.odt

of delay of about two years. In law, advantage has accrued to the non-

applicants claimants and the same cannot be withdrawn in a mechanical

manner and that too without any sufficient cause being shown to the

applicants. Despite, awards/judgments of the Courts which have

attained finality, the claimants are not permitted to receive

compensation in respect of their lands, which came to be compulsorily

acquired, is itself, sufficient prejudice to them. Therefore, before any

delay can be condoned and the claimants subjected to further prolonged

litigation, the onus to show sufficient cause lies upon the applicant -

State". Therefore, applying these principles, it can be said that no

sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay.

9. As aforesaid, this Court have taken note of the decision in State of

Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bherulal (Supra) and it was observed that in case of

failure to give any proper explanation, this Court may consider

imposition of heavy costs. In the said decision, it has been held that

unless officer/officer(s) concerned have reasonable and acceptable

explanation for delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to

accept usual explanation that file was kept pending for several

months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in

process. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court sent a warning in such

cases of inordinate delay to the Government or the State authorities that

CA-14691-2018, 14693-2018.odt

they should pay for wastage of judicial time which has its own value and

such costs shall be recovered from the officers responsible. To apply this

ratio, the affidavit was called, though the affidavit is not giving a good

state of affairs, however, it can be definitely said that the present officer,

who has filed the affidavit, could not have been the person in-charge in

the year 2013. Further, when the office itself was closed down, yet, who

was required to carry out the further affairs in view of order dated

14.08.2013 will have to be inquired into, but certainly it is not at the

cost of the present officer and, therefore, that action of recovery of

wastage of judicial time is not warranted. Suffice it to say, as the

reasonable ground has not been shown to condone the delay, the

applications deserve to be rejected.

10. It will not be out of place to mention here that in view of the

order passed in stay applications i.e. Civil Application Nos.14692 of

2018 and 14694 of 2018 amount of Rs.17,92,708/- and Rs.26,01,614/-

has been deposited in this Court respectively. It deserves to be disbursed

as per the award to the respective respondents - original claimants.

Hence, the following order :-

ORDER

I) Civil Application Nos.14691 of 2018 and 14693 of 2018 stand

rejected.

CA-14691-2018, 14693-2018.odt

II) The amount of Rs.17,92,708/- and Rs.26,01,614/- deposited in

these matters be disbursed to the respective respondents - original

claimants as per the award.

[SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.] scm