KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) BY these Civil Applications, the State of Gujarat prayed for condonation of delay of 830 days caused in filing of the Appeals before this Court under sec. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the common award in Land Reference cases No. 1147/88 to 1159/88, passed by the 2nd Joint District Judge, Mahesana on 13. 2. 1995. ( 2 ) THE lands of the claimants-respondents were compulsorily acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the act for short) for Dharoi Canal Scheme, Himmatnagar. The Notification under Sec. 4 of the Act was published on 5. 8. 1985. The lands of the claimants are situated in the sim of Village valsana, Taluka Kheralu. The Notification under Sec. 6 was published on 26. 1. 1986. ( 3 ) UNDER the award dated 31st March, 1987, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded the compensation to the claimants-respondents at the rate of Rs. 0. 77 per sq. mt. The claimants-respondents were not satisfied with this amount of compensation awarded by Special Land Acquisition Officer for the acquisition of their land, at their request, reference were made under Sec. 18 of the Act to the Civil Court. ( 4 ) THE Civil Court, under the impugned award, has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 8. 77 per sq. mt. So the additional compensation has been awarded at the rate of Rs. 8/- per sq. mt. The claimants have claimed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 10/= per sq. mt. before the reference Court. It is necessary to mention here that the Reference Court has proceeded to determine the compensation on the basis of yield method. However, the evidence which has been given by the claimants- respondents regarding the yield income which they were drawing from the land in question was not accepted. The reference Court has taken the earning to be Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 1,500/- per year from one vigha of land and on that basis the compensation has been awarded at the rate of Rs. 8. 77 per sq. mt. The reference Court has taken the earning to be Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 1,500/- per year from one vigha of land and on that basis the compensation has been awarded at the rate of Rs. 8. 77 per sq. mt. ( 5 ) AFTER going through the judgment of the reference Courts I am satisfied that the amount of compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in the present case to the claimants for acquisition of their lands was not just, adequate and reasonable, and the reference Court has rightly not accepted the amount of compensation awarded by the said officer to them. ( 6 ) THE appeals are not filed by the appellant in this Court within time. Delay in filing thereof is of 830 days. The learned counsel for the appellant by making reference to certain decisions of the Apex Court, contended that liberal view should be taken while dealing with the applications of the State Government for condonation of delay in filing the appeals. It has further been contended that each day delay is not required to be explained and the matter has to be considered with reference to the fact that in the State government, lengthy procedure has to be undergone before filing of the appeal in this court. I do not consider it to be appropriate to digest on this contention made by the learned counsel for the appellant in detail as I have dealt with this very contention While deciding the Civil Application No. 257 of 1998 to 264 of 1998 decided today. However, in those cases, delay was only of 59 days still this Court has not considered it to be a fit case where delay should be condoned. The present one is the worst case. ( 7 ) THE Judgment has been delivered by the reference Court in the matters on 13. 2. 1995 and the application for certified copy of the same was submitted on 17. 1. 1997, i. e. , after more than one year and almost eleven months. The appellants have not furnished any cause, much less a sufficient cause for this delay of one year and about eleven months in submitting the application for certified copy of the award. 1995 and the application for certified copy of the same was submitted on 17. 1. 1997, i. e. , after more than one year and almost eleven months. The appellants have not furnished any cause, much less a sufficient cause for this delay of one year and about eleven months in submitting the application for certified copy of the award. It is not law that even if no explanation has been given for this long delay in filing of the appeals, same has to be condoned as these are the appeals filed by the State Government. Even if it is taken that some procedural formalities have to be complied with, still I fail to understand how it is relevant where the State Government invariably in all cases is not filing the appeals in time. It is understandable that out of hundreds of cases in one case on account of some lengthy formalities, long time is taken, but in the State of Gujarat, rule is not to file appeal in time and exception is to file Appeal in time". So the State of Gujarat has taken it to be a rule that Limitation Act is not applicable to it and it can file appeals in the High Court at any time convenient to it. Procedural formalities are understandable but in the matters where appeals are being filed under the provisions of the Act 1894 and where limitation has been prescribed under the Limitation Act, it is expected of the officers of the State Government that they know the limitation prescribed for filing of the appeals and these are to be filed within limitation. The functionaries or officers of the state Government are expected to act with that speed so that delay may not occur in filing of the appeals. The officers of the State Government in this matters, proceeded in a manner as if limitation is not prescribed for filing appeals in this Court. They proceed leisurely, and sometimes, negligence is also attributable to their actions. In the present case, negligence is clearly borne out from the fact that for more than one year and eleven months, nobody has cared even to apply for certified copy of the judgment of the court below against which the appeals were to be filed. They proceed leisurely, and sometimes, negligence is also attributable to their actions. In the present case, negligence is clearly borne out from the fact that for more than one year and eleven months, nobody has cared even to apply for certified copy of the judgment of the court below against which the appeals were to be filed. The very fact that the officers concerned have not taken care for one year and eleven months to apply for the certified copy of the award gives out that the State Government was not intending to file appeals in these matters. ( 8 ) THEN comes next important aspect. The copy of the judgment impugned was delivered on 4. 2. 1997 and thereafter also, the State Government has taken long time of about more than seven months to file appeals before this Court. When there was already delay of more than one year and eleven months in filing of the appeal, then after delivery of the copy, the process of completing the formalities in the speed of Tortoise is difficult to appreciate. After delivery of the copy on 4. 2. 1997, expeditiously the official formalities should have been undertaken and completed and further delay could have been prevented but the very fact that leisurely the officers of the Government have moved even after knowing the fact mat the appeals have already been delayed by more than one year and eleven months, shows the carelessness and negligence on their part. In this case also, there is a clew negligence on the part of the officers of the Narmada and Water resource Department to sit over such an important matter for about more than four months before sending the matter back to the Legal Department for filing of the appeals. Under the garb of procedural formalities, the State Government cannot be given indulgence in these cases. Moreover, when valuable rights are being accrued in favour of other side by not filing of the appeals by the State Government in limitation, this Court will not lightly condone delay of 830 days caused in filing of the appeals against the impugned award. Only in case of bonafide mistake or where sufficient cause is made out by which it was prevented from filing the appeal in time, delay may be condoned but not as a routine, as the State Government has prayed in these Civil applications. Only in case of bonafide mistake or where sufficient cause is made out by which it was prevented from filing the appeal in time, delay may be condoned but not as a routine, as the State Government has prayed in these Civil applications. Liberal view is no doubt to be taken in the matter of condonation of delay in filing of the Appeals but it appears that taking of the liberal view by the Court has given out an impression to the officers of the State Government not to file appeals within limitation in this State is a rule. ( 9 ) I do not find any ground, much less a sufficient ground in the present case by which the State Government can be said to have been prevented from filing of these appeals in this Court in time. ( 10 ) OTHERWISE also, in these matters, no interference is called for. If we go by the statement annexed to the judgment of the Reference Court, I find that in all the appeals except in one, the additional amount of compensation awarded is less than Rs. 15,000/ -. It is really shocking that even in the matter where the additional compensation awarded by the Reference Court is of Rs. 572/- and Rs. 762/-, the Appeals have been filed. The division Bench of this Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. Shantaben, Chhitubhais Widow and Ors. , in Civil Application No. 7876 of 1997 and allied matters, decided on 10. 9. 1997, has held that where the additional amount of compensation awarded by the Reference Court is not exceeding Rs. 15,000/-, in such matters, appeals may not be entertained. So the twelve appeals are covered by the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case. So far as one appeal is concerned, wherein the amount of compensation exceeds Rs. 15,000/-, no interference is called for as the appeal filed is barred by 830 days and no explanation has been furnished for filing of the appeal after such a considerable long delay. ( 11 ) IN the result, all these Civil Applications are dismissed. Rule discharged. Consequent upon the dismissal of these Civil Applications, all the First Appeals also deserve to be dismissed as barred by limitation and accordingly, the same are also dismissed. ( 11 ) IN the result, all these Civil Applications are dismissed. Rule discharged. Consequent upon the dismissal of these Civil Applications, all the First Appeals also deserve to be dismissed as barred by limitation and accordingly, the same are also dismissed. ( 12 ) THE State Government functions through its officers and they are not supposed to act carelessly and negligently in performance of their official duties. These are the appeals in land acquisition matters. Thousands of appeals would have been filed by the concerned departments of the Government before this Court in the matter of land acquisition and it is difficult to accept that the officers dealing with these matters in the Departments may not be aware of the limitation prescribed for filing of the appeals under Sec. 54 of the Act. So where limitation is prescribed, it is expected of the officers to process the files and complete the official formalities within limitation period. Only in exceptional cases where because of bonafide reasons and case of sufficient cause is made out, delay may be condoned but it cannot be condoned as a rule or merely on asking by the State government. The State Government cannot be given any preferential treatment in the matter of limitation for filing of the appeals. This Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that delay has resulted in filing of these appeals because of negligence, inaction, omission or carelessness on the part of the officers and this act has resulted in dismissal of these appeals on the ground of limitation. So it is a case where the appeals of the State government have been dismissed because of the negligence or carelessness on the part of the officers to discharge their official duties and the State Government is within its competence to recover this amount of loss incurred by it, inclusive of the costs of litigation of filing of these appeals and Civil Applications before this Court from the erring and defaulting officers. ( 13 ) THE Chief Secretary, Government of Gujarat, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, is directed to hold an enquiry in these matters and all other matters where the appeals have been dismissed only on the ground of limitation and the amount of loss suffered by the state Government because of dismissal of these appeals as well as the costs of litigation incurred by the State Government in filing of these appeals with Civil Applications and other matters be recovered from the erring and defaulting officers. This enquiry may be completed within a period of one year from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The result of this enquiry be reported to this Court. The office is directed to place this matter with the report of the Chief Secretary, Government of Gujarat, in the Court, on 15th July, 1999. ( 14 ) THIS is a peculiar case where the respondents-claimants have been dragged into litigation before this Court by the appellant State. They have acquired a right by the conduct of the appellant not to file an appeal within limitation. In the present case, as stated earlier, even the application for obtaining certified copy of the judgment has not been made for one year and eleven months. In these facts, they have rightly felt that the impugned judgment has attained finality. After 830 days of the expiry of limitation, the state Government has chosen to file appeals and when the notice have been issued, these persons were compelled to put appearance before the Court to contest the matters. They appeared through advocate Mr. AJ. Patel, who very fairly submitted that he has settled to charge Rs. 1,000/- per appeal. It is a case where these land holders whose lands have been compulsorily acquired, have been put to suffer this financial burden. This Court, in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. Shantaben, Chhitubhais Widow and ors. , (Supra), has noticed that if in such matters where amount of additional compensation is less than Rs. 15,000/-, giving of the notice of Civil Application will disproportionately burden the claimants, which has exactly happened in this case also. As stated earlier, in two matter, the amount of additional compensation awarded is only rs. 572. 16 and 762. 88 and for this amount, the claimants have to incur Rs. 1,000/- for contesting their claim. 15,000/-, giving of the notice of Civil Application will disproportionately burden the claimants, which has exactly happened in this case also. As stated earlier, in two matter, the amount of additional compensation awarded is only rs. 572. 16 and 762. 88 and for this amount, the claimants have to incur Rs. 1,000/- for contesting their claim. I therefore consider it to be a fit case where the claimants should be awarded the costs. Order accordingly. The State Government is directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- per case as costs of this litigation to the claimant-respodent. This amount of costs may also be recovered from the defaulting and erring officers. .