Gujarat High Court

The Special Land Acquisition Officer vs Bipinbhai Rambhai Patel on 26 June, 2025

                                                                                                              NEUTRAL CITATION




                            C/CA/5336/2024                                   ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025

                                                                                                              undefined




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                        R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5336 of
                                                   2024

                                             In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 29118 of 2024

                     ==========================================================
                                   THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR.
                                                       Versus
                                             BIPINBHAI RAMBHAI PATEL
                     ==========================================================
                     Appearance:
                     MR RAHUL K DAVE, AGP for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
                     MR CHINMAY M GANDHI(3979) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                     MS NIKITA C GANDHI(11570) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                     ==========================================================

                        CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI

                                                         Date : 26/06/2025

                                                           ORAL ORDER

1. The present application is filled under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act for the Condonation of Delay of 665 days in

preferring the First Appeal.

2. Heard learned AGP Mr. Rahul K. Dave for the applicant

and learned advocate Mr. Chinmay M. Gandhi assisted by

learned advocate Ms. Bhoomi Patel for the respondents.

3. Learned AGP at the outset submitted that the Judgment

and Award passed in L.A.R. No. 269 of 2012 was rendered on

30.08.2022 by the Special Judge (LAQ) and Principle Senior Civil

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/5336/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025

undefined

Judge, Dist: Ahmedabad (Rural). By Judgment and Award, the

claimant was awarded compensation at Rs.876.86 per sq meters

with statutory benefits. After the pronouncement of the

Impugned Judgment and Award, the attention of the office of the

applicant was brought on 06.09.2022. Certified copy of the

Impugned Judgment and Award was received on 03.10.2022.

Thereafter the communication ensued between various

departments of the applicant and on 24.03.2023, Legal

Department of the applicant rejected the proposal to file any

appeal. Thereafter it was decided to move the file before the

Office of Hon'ble the Chief Minister for sanction of appeal on

27.03.2023. The permission to file an appeal was received on

29.03.2023 by Additional Chief Secretary (Rehabilitation) and by

the Chief Secretary on 31.03.2023. The permission from the

Office of the Hon'ble the Chief Minister was received on

10.04.2023. After the receipt of such permission, the file was put

up for the approval of the Legal Department again on 13.04.2023

and was sent to the Office of Government Pleader on 27.04.2023.

The reasons for delay was submitted to the Office of the

Government Pleader on 10.05.2023 and the copy of Judgment

and Award was submitted to the Office of the Government

Pleader on 08.06.2023. Thereafter, pursuant to various

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/5336/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025

undefined

communications ensued between the department of the

applicant and the Office of Government Pleader, the appeal came

to be filed with an application for condonation of delays on

07.10.2024.

4. It is submitted that there is no inordinate delay in filing the

appeal. It is contended that the file of the concerned case has

travelled through different departments of the State which has

resulted into delay. It is contended that, looking to the

averments made in the application, the delay has been

sufficiently explained and in the interest of justice, delay may be

condoned. No other submissions are made by the learned AGP,

except above.

5. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent has relied

upon affidavit in reply filed by the respondent and contended

that the explanation which has been put forth in the application

are not sufficient cause and the present case is a glaring

example of an inaction on the part of the State. It is contended

that the original claimant-present respondent has assailed the

impugned Judgment and Award by filing the First Appeal with

an application for condonation of delay. The appeal has been

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/5336/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025

undefined

admitted by this Court. It is further contended that as per the

averments made in the application, the applicant received

sanction from the Hon'ble Chief Minister on 10.04.2023.

However, the application for condonation of delay with the First

Appeal was presented on 07.10.2024 without explaining any

reasons as to why the time was consumed after 10.04.2023 till

07.10.2024. The period has remained unexplained in the

application and by only stating the communications exchanged

between concerned department of the applicant and the Office of

the Government Pleader is not a sufficient cause for condoning

delay.

6. It is further contended that the compensation which has

been awarded by the learned Reference Court would come to Rs.

19,05,855/- with all statutory benefits. It is submitted that the

amount involved in the present First Appeal is not so huge that

the decision of the Legal Department be put before the Office of

the Hon'ble Chief Minister for an approval to file the appeal.

7. Learned advocate for the respondent has relied upon

following decisions in support of his contentions:

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/5336/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025

undefined

1) In case of Amalendu Kumar Bera Vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2013 (0) GLHEL-SC 53893

2) In case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Mohan Lal, reported in 2024 (0) AIJEL-SC 73621

3) In case of State of Gujarat Vs. Dahayabhai Nyalchand Vora reported in 2014 (0) AIJEL-HC 236088

4) In case of State of Gujarat Through Deputy Secretary Vs. Kasiben Rantanjibhai Gamit reported in 2021 (0) AIJEL-HC 243094

8. It is contended that in the aforesaid decisions, the Hon'ble

Apex Court as well as the decision of High Courts lays down the

law that if the time gap is not properly explained, delay would

not be condoned. When the application for certified copy is not

given within the period of limitation, it suggests negligence on

the part of the applicant and merely by moving files from one

department to another time consumed in such process would

not be a sufficient cause.

9. I have considered submissions canvased by learned

advocates for the parties and perused the application as well as

affidavit filed by respondent. Before adverting into the question

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/5336/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025

undefined

of sufficient cause being established in the present case or not,

certain facts which emerge from the records is required to be

noted. Vide Judgment and Award dated 30.08.2022, learned

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Dist: Ahmedabad (Rural) in Land

Acquisition Reference Case No.269 of 2012, awarded

compensation to the original claimants while deciding market

value of land at Rs. 876.86 per sq meters calculating the total

amount of compensation including all statutory benefits, it

would come to Rs. 19,05,855/-. It appears from the application

that the date of pronouncement of the impugned Judgment and

Award was brought to the notice of the applicant on 06.09.2022.

The certified copy of the impugned Judgment and Award was

received on 03.10.2022. On 19.10.2022, the learned District

Government Pleader opined to file an Appeal. No specific date is

mentioned in the application as to date of opinion. On

03.01.2023, the file was sent to the Legal Department for the

sanction to file an appeal. On 04.02.2023, Additional Chief

Secretary (Rehabilitation) directed to move the file to the Legal

Department which was moved on 05.02.2023. Again, the file was

put forth for the approval of the Legal Department, who on

24.03.2023, rejected the proposal to file the appeal. Once, the

Legal Department has rejected the proposal to file appeal

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/5336/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025

undefined

challenging the impugned Judgment and Award, unless the

stake involved in the reference cases is touching the public

interest and revenue to very large extent, the file would not be

moved to the Office of the Hon'ble the Chief Minister for the

sanction to file an appeal. In the present case, nothing is pointed

out, either in the application or during the oral submission by

learned AGP that the issue involved in the present case touches

the public interest at large and the issue is such that the

decision rendered by the learned Reference Court would

adversely affect the State as well as it would have a serious effect

on any other pending matters pertaining to acquisition of land of

same village. However, the file was sent to the Office of the

Hon'ble the Chief Minister for sanctioning of appeal to be filed.

On 10.04.2023 sanction from the Office of Hon'ble the Chief

Minister was received by the applicant. Even after receipt of such

an approval from the Office of Hon'ble the Chief Minister, file was

put up before the Legal Department on 13.04.2023 for approval.

After the approval by the Legal Department, the file was sent to

the Office of Government Pleader on 27.04.2023. On reading the

application, more particularly paragraph 11, 12 and 13 of the

application, it transpires that except correspondence exchanged

between the various departments interse of the applicant and

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/5336/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025

undefined

the office of the learned Government Pleader, nothing else was

done by the applicant. Learned advocate for the respondent has

drawn my attention to a fact that the affidavit in support of the

application was sworn on 01.10.2024 and the application was

presented on 07.10.2024. On perusal of the application and also

considering submissions, no explanation forthcoming from the

learned AGP explaining a valid and palatable reason for not filing

the appeal from the date of the sanction approved by the Hon'ble

the Chief Minister till the application is filed. The officers of the

applicant have remained lethargic.

10. It is interesting to observe at this point that an application

for certified copy was applied on 19.02.2024 which was ready for

delivery on 28.02.2024 and the certified copy was received by the

Office of learned District Government Pleader on 01.03.2024. It

is an undisputed fact that when an application for certified copy

was applied on 19.02.2024, the period of limitation to file an

appeal has already been expired. However, as per statement

made in the application that certified copy of the impugned

award was received on 03.10.2022. If certified copy was available

with the applicant in the year 2022, what was the need to apply

a fresh certified copy of impugned award. There is no

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/5336/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025

undefined

clarification on this aspect.

11. Again, coming back to the application for condonation of

delay, except the fact that the various departments of the State

were engaged in communicating internally, vide different

communications only. No palatable explanation is forthcoming

for the cause of delay. In the modern era, with the help of

advance tools of technology, the decision making process can be

expedited. The days are gone when the Government machinery

would indulge themselves in corresponding with each other by

writing letters back and forth. By writing letters, sending papers,

it does not mean that officers of various department of Applicant

are discharging their duties diligently and efficiently.

12. The decisions relied upon by the learned advocate for the

respondent squarely applies to the fact to the present case,

which has been laid down in the case of Amalendu Kumar Bera

Vs. State of West Bengal (Supra), which reads as under:

"9 We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-State. There is no dispute that the expression 'sufficient cause' should be considered with pragmatism in justice oriented approach rather than the technical detection of 'sufficient cause' for the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/5336/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025

undefined

explaining every days' delay. However, it is equally well settled that the Courts albeit liberally considered the prayer for condonation of delay but in some cases the Court may refuse to condone the delay in as much as the Government is not accepted to keep watch whether the contesting respondent further put the matter in motion. The delay in official business requires its pedantic approach from public justice perspective. In a recent decision in the case of Union of India V/s. Nirpen Sharma AIR 2011 SC 1237 the matter came up against the order passed by the High Court condoning the delay in filing the appeal by the appellant-Union of India. The High Court refused to condone the delay on the ground that the appellant- Union of India took their own sweet time to reach the conclusion whether the judgment should be appealed or not. The High Court also expressed its anguish and distress, the way the State conduct the cases regularly in filing the appeal after the same became operational and barred by limitation.

10 In the instant case as noticed above, admittedly earlier objection filed by the Respondent-State under Section 47 of the Code was dismissed on 17.8.2010. Instead of challenging the said order the Respondent- State after about one year filed another objection on 15.9.2011 under Section 47 of the Code which was finally rejected by the executing court. It was only after a writ of attachment was issued by the executing court the respondent preferred civil revision against the first order dated 17.8.2010 along with a petition for condonation of delay. Curiously enough in the application for condonation of delay no sufficient cause has been shown which entitle the respondent to get a favourable order for condonation of delay. True it is, that courts should always take liberal approach in the matter of condonation of delay, particularly when the appellant is the State but in a case where there is serious laches and negligence on the part of the State in challenging the decree passed in the suit and affirmed in appeal, the State cannot be allowed to wait to file objection under Section 47 till the decree holder puts the decree in execution. As noticed above, the decree passed in the year 1967 was in respect of declaration of title and permanent injunction restraining the Respondent-State from interfering with

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/5336/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025

undefined

the possession of the suit property of the plaintiff- appellant. It is evident that when the State tried to interfere with possession the decree holder had no alternative but to levy the execution case for execution of the decree with regard to interference with possession. In our opinion their delay in filing the execution case cannot be a ground to condone the delay in filing the revision against the order refusing to entertain objection under Section 47 CPC. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the High Court while deciding petition for condoning the delay. Merely because the Respondent is the State, delay in filing the appeal or revision cannot and shall not be mechanically considered and in absence of 'sufficient cause' delay shall not be condoned."

13. In the cases where there are serious latches and negligence

on the part of the State in challenging the decree when delay is

not sufficiently explained by showing sufficient cause, delay

cannot be condoned.

14. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Mohanlal

(Supra), the Apex Court has observed that when the State

appeared before the High Court and was heard before passing

impugned order, it was within their knowledge and when

sufficient cause is not made out for condonation of huge delay of

1633 days in filing the present application. Delay can't be

condoned.

15. In case of State of Gujarat Vs. Dahayabhai Nyalchand

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/5336/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025

undefined

Vora (Supra), the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that

when the application for certified copy is not given within the

period of limitation, it suggests apathy and negligence on the

part of the appellant. Movement of files from one table to

another, would not furnish sufficient cause unless time

consumed in decision making process is shown as bona fide. In

paragraph No. 6, Co-ordinate Bench has considered the decision

rendered in the case of Office of Chief Postmaster General Vs.

Living Media India Limited and others reported in 2012 Vol1 GLS

"6. Turning to the explanation offered in the present case, in light of the above parameters set by the Apex Court, it was conspicuously noticed that judgment sought to be challenged was delivered on 14th October, 2011, however the certified copy was applied after moire than six months. In other words, even the certified copy was not applied within the period of limitation. The limitation had already expired when the Departmental realised that certified copy was not available and the same was required to be obtained. When the telegram was sent by officer concerned for applying certified copy, the papers had reached Government Pleader's office for drafting and actual filing. The officers of the Department cannot disclaim the knowledge of proceedings, requirements and in particular the period of limitation within which, the appeal could be required to be preferred.

6.1 In Office of the Chief Post Master General (supra), it was appropriately observed by the Apex Court that the persons concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter before the higher court. In that case the certified copy of

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/5336/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025

undefined

the High Court's judgment was applied for only after four months by the Postal Department, who had preferred SLP before the Supreme Court.

6.2 It may be true that in a given or special case, late applying of certified copy may have good reason to be condoned. But, ordinarily and in all normal cases, the act of applying certified copy immediately or at least within the period of limitation after deliverance of the judgment proposed to be challenged, is an important measure of litigant's vigilance. It is also a reflection of intention to carry the case in appeal and agitate for his rights. This much amount of vigilance is expected, whether it is a private individual or a government department. Therefore, without making a rule of thumb, it can be safely stated that when the certified copy is not applied within the period of limitation, it suggests apathy and negligence on part of the litigant. In the present case, there is no explanation for time gap between 14th October, 2011 and 21st April, 2012. Given this conduct of not applying the certified copy till the papers reached the office of the Government Pleader at High Court, the explanation about time taken in exhausting different decisional stages turned out to be the lame excuse, judicially not acceptable. Mere movement of files from one table to another and the stock ground of administrative procedure cannot furnish a good cause and a sufficient cause in all cases, unless the time consumed in the decision making process is shown to be bonafide.

6.3 Indolence on part of the applicants in the matter of preferring Appeal is further reinforced in view of uncontroverted fact that in the aforementioned writ petition filed by the respondent herein, certified copy of the judgment of the District Court sought to be impugned in the Second Appeal was placed on record of that petition as back as in December, 2011. The applicants herein who were respondents in the writ petition, were thus posted with knowledge. They were aware, yet they did not act in the matter. It was only after

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/5336/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025

undefined

eight months that in July, 2012, Appeal and delay condonation Application was filed. The unexplained yawning gap between the date of judgment and applying of certified copy and the aforesaid aspect, is indicative of gross apathy and indolence on part of the applicants and its officers."

16. In case of State of Gujarat Through Deputy Secretary

Vs. Kasiben Rantanjibhai Gamit (Supra), the Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court while deciding an application under Section

5 of the Limitation Act, has observed that the application for

getting certified copy was filed after the passage of 8 months and

District Government Pleader submitted his opinion after a laps of

4 months. By the time certified copy was applied for, the

limitation period to prefer the appeal is already expired. In

Paragraph No. 5 and 6, the Co-ordinate Bench has observed as

under:

"5 Before proceeding to appreciate the stagewise explanation put-forth in respect of occurrence of delay, in the present case, there exists a factor which would alone render the prayer for condonation of delay liable to be rejected. As noted above, the judgment and award of the Reference Court was pronounced on 05th November, 2014. The application for getting certified copy was filed after a passage of more than eight months, that is, on 25th June, 2015. This time gap is not explained at all by the applicant-State. Not making application for getting certified copy reasonably soon after deliverance of the judgment and award is the most relevant conduct on part of the State when it seeks to condone delay. By the time the certified copy was applied, the limitation period

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/5336/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025

undefined

to prefer appeal had already expired.

5.1 It is to be observed that the Limitation Act is a statute which bars a cause-of-action in court of law which would have been, but for passage of time, lawful and valid. The principle of non- entertainment of challenge to judgment or oder by higher court of law after undesirable lapse of time as contained in the Limitation Act is based on well accepted norms of public policy and jurisprudence.

5.2 In the present case, in addition to the aspect that the certified copy was applied after a yawning gap as above, even in the subsequent stages, passage of unreasonable time writs large. While the certified copy was made available on 21st July, 2015, the District Government Pleader submitted his opinion on 21st October, 2015 after lapse of four months. The file thereafter moved at snail's speed before different departments, tables and the committees, resulting into only whiling away of time.

5.3 It is unbelievable that such process could take 1569 days, that is nearly five years. One is afraid whether the stock plea of adhering to the procedure could be raised in such circumstance to justify this much extent of delay. Indolence was evident. The indolence and resultant delay of such magnitude partook the negligence. It is true that some leeway can be given to the governmental authorities in processing the decision but in the times when technology has advanced, extending leniency in the matter of expanding time has to see a limit.

5.4 In Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Limited [(2012) 3 SCC 563], the Supreme Court seriously disapproved the lack of diligence on part of Post and Telegraph Department in prosecuting the matter. The delay of 427 days in filing Special Leave Petition was not condoned observing that the law of limitation binds everyone equally including the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/5336/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025

undefined

government. It was observed that the defence by the government of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology cannot be accepted in view of modern technology used and available.

5.4.1 The Supreme Court stated, "In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment.

Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was not proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Eight years hence the judgment is still unheeded!" (Para [13])

5.4.2 In that case, the non-availability of the documents and the process for arranging the documents was advanced as ground and it was pleaded that the bureaucratic process as it works, it is inadvertent that the delay occurs. The Supreme Court refused to countenance such a plea observing thus, "It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/5336/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025

undefined

absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government." (Para [12])

5.5 In State of U.P. v. Amar Nath Yadav [AIR 2014 SCW 1074], the Supreme Court did not condone the delay of 481 days in filing the Special Leave Petition. In this case, delay was attributed to movement of file from one-department-to-another. It was held to be not sufficient cause for condonation of delay relying on what is observed and held in Living Media India Limited (supra).

5.6 It is well settled that though Section 5 of the Limitation Act permits exercise of discretion to condone the delay, condonation of delay should not be so routine which may destroy the settled and substantial rights of the other side which may have crystalised on account of passage of limitation period. In the legislative prescription of limitation period, there is also another purpose, which is not to permit a stale litigation to continue. The condonation of delay has to be acted upon on the existence of sufficient cause to be culled out from the facts of each case.

5.7 In Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer [(2013) 12 SCC 81], the Apex Court highlighted the concept of sufficient cause in the following words. "Sufficient cause is the cause for which the defendant could not be blamed for his

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/5336/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025

undefined

absence. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word "sufficient" embraces no more than that which provides a platutide, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the viewpoint of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, "sufficient cause" means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has "not acted diligently" or "remained inactive". However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the court that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from prosecuting this case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose." (Para [9])

6 Reverting back to the facts of the case, not only the certified copy was not applied within the limitation period, the file was lethargically kept on moving from one authority to another and for one purpose to another. Opining officer as well as the processing authorities, all acted in dealing with the files for the purpose of preferring appeal as if there is nothing like time-bound period, much less a limitation prescribed. Sufficient cause should be given liberal interpretation to ensure that the substantial justice is done, but only so long as the negligence, inaction or lack of bona fide cannot be infused, as observed by the Supreme Court in Madanlal v. Shyamlal [(2002) 1 SCC 535].

6.1 In the facts of the present case, there was hardly any ground which may persuade the Court to take a view to hold that sufficient cause is made out. The delay has been attributable to

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/5336/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025

undefined

complete lack of diligence and to gross negligence on part of those authorities which dealt with the case. It was a story of sorry state of affairs noticed in the functioning of departments of the applicant-State."

17. In the present case also, the applicant was in full

knowledge that the impugned Judgment and Award was passed

on 30.08.2022 and the Legal Department had rejected the

proposal to file an appeal on 24.03.2023.

18. It would be apt to refer a decision rendered by the Division

Bench of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs.

Harshadkumar A Pandya in R/Civil Application No. 3051 of

2020 in Letters Patent Appeal No.17464 of 2020 dated

17.12.2020. In paragraph No.12, the Division Bench has

observed as under:

"12. We once again go back to the Circular of the State Government dated 27.09.2005 referred to above. The Circular makes it very clear that once the Legal Department is of the view that no case is made out for preferring an appeal, then, such opinion should ordinarily be accepted, unless the office of the Chief Minister of the State is of the view that it is necessary to challenge the order in public interest, the State should prefer an appeal. We fail to understand that what is the public interest involved in this particular litigation. In this litigation, the Government servant requested to sanction the medical bills to the tune of Rs.1,53,462/-. The daughter of the writ applicant aged 4 and 1/2 years was not developing physically as well as mentally compared to the other children of her age and in such circumstances, the writ applicant was advised by the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/5336/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025

undefined

doctors to go for treatment for the disease called the "Russel Silver Syndrome". The medical reimbursement was declined and that is the reasons the writ applicant had to come before this Court. The High Court allowed the writ application after taking into consideration all the relevant aspects of the matter."

18.1 While rejecting the application for delay of 320 days, the

Division Bench observed that, even after both the Government

Pleader and the Legal Department advised against filling the

appeal, the matter was pushed through multiple departments,

eventually leading to intervention by the Hon'ble the Chief

Minister's Office without justification in public interest.

19. In the case on hand, almost similar facts have been

cropped out for consideration. After the pronouncement of the

impugned Judgment and Award on 30.08.2022, the legal opinion

dated 19.10.2022 was communicated to the Special Land

Acquisition Officer by the District Government Pleader. Even

after receipt of the legal opinion, on 12.01.2023 Law Officers