JUDGMENT : B.C. Patel, J. Against the award made by the Extra Assistant Judge, Mehsana, in Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 85 of 1986, the State and the Officer on Special Duty, Land Acquisition, has preferred the appeal. The impugned judgment is dated 10th December 1993, and the appeal is filed in this Court on 7th October,1994. As this Court office noticed that there is delay in filing the First Appeal, only thereafter the State has preferred an application for condonation of delay on/or about 12th July 1996, and the Division Bench issued rule on 18th July 1996, making it returnable on 30th August 1996. 2. Though the District Court has delivered the judgment on 19th December 1993, the District Government Pleader has applied for a certified copy of the judgment on 15th September 1994, which was supplied to him on 3rd October 1994. Ld. Addl. Government Pleader who filed this application on behalf of the State ought to have known at the time of filing the First Appeal and, in any case at the time of filing the Civil Application that the delay should have been properly explained by filing affidavit of the District Government Pleader. It was for him to explain the delay. Surprisingly the papers were processed without certified copy of the judgment and it is only when the Ld. Government Pleader of the High Court sent a telegram to District Government Pleader of Mehsana to send certified copy of the judgment & award, same was forwarded along with a letter dated 7th October 1994 from the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmedabad. 3. Even at the time of filing application there was no affidavit from the District Government Pleader. Yet we gave an opportunity to the Addl. Government Pleader appearing in the matter and at his request we have adjourned the matter to today, and till this date no affidavit is filed. Therefore it appears that the State is not in a position to explain the delay. 4. The acquisition proceedings are initiated for acquisition of land for G.I.D.C. If G.I.D.C. is aggrieved by the judgment & award of the District Court, it has an independent right to prefer the appeal. Under the circumstances, as the delay is not explained, though time is given, we reject this application. 5. In the case of State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani & Ors. Under the circumstances, as the delay is not explained, though time is given, we reject this application. 5. In the case of State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani & Ors. reported in JT 1966 (3) SC 371, the Apex Court has observed as under:- "...No separate standards to determine the cause laid by the State vis-a-vis private litigant could be laid to prove strict standards of sufficient cause. The Government at appropriate level should constitute legal cells to examine the cases whether any legal principles are involved for decision by the courts or whether cases require adjustment and should authorise the officers take a decision or give appropriate permission for settlement. In the event of decision to file appeal needed prompt action should be pursued by the officer responsible to file the appeal and he should be made personally responsible for lapses, if any." 6. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, we asked a question to Ld. Addl. Government Pleader as to what action has been taken against the erring officer, to which there is no reply. It is the duty of the Government to first take action against the erring officer and to point out to the Court that, the concerned officer has acted negligently or is a party to the fraud and because of his fault or fraud the delay has occurred. In the instant case, though sufficient time was with the State to file an affidavit of Ld. District Government Pleader, and even thereafter we gave time to file the affidavit, the State has not chosen to file the affidavit of Ld. District Government Pleader. Without taking any action against the erring officers, it would not be proper for the State to urge that the delay must be condoned, though their officers may be negligent. The State has prescribed the Gujarat Law Officers (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules 1969, and therefore it was the duty of the Government to place on record that a particular procedure is not followed either on account of ignorance, or mistake, or negligence or fraud. 7. Rule stands discharged. Rule discharged.