Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 125 (KAR)

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. RAYANA GOUDA

2000-02-10

G.C.BHARUKA, H.N.TILHARI, K.SREEDHAR RAO

body2000
H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is delayed by 43 days in the matter of filing. This appeal arises from the judgment and decree dated 3-2-1990 passed by the District Judge, Raichur, in appeal number M. F. A. No. 137 of 1989 and the District Judge affirmed the judgment and award passed by the Civil Judge, Raichur in L. A. C. No. 48 of 1979. ( 2 ) THIS appeal was filed on 30th June, 1990, but without filing the certified copy of the award and judgment of the Court of Reference, namely, Civil Judge, Raichur dated 6-2-1982. The Registry of this Court returned the appeal for being refiled with complete papers, that is including the certified copy of the judgment and award of the Reference Court as well, and it appears it was refiled some time in December 1999, along with application for condonation of delay in refiling. ( 3 ) THE delay in refiling has been to the tune of 3,418 days. In the application for condonation of delay, it is stated that the certified copy of the judgment and decree of the 1st Appellate Court was received by the government appellant on 27-2-1990 and same was submitted on 2-3-1990 to the Under Secretary for necessary orders and same was seen by under Secretary on 20-6-1990. It means for more than three months file was kept pending with the Under Secretary and he did not care to see the file. After the Under Secretary had given opinion on 20th June, 1990, papers were placed before the Additional Law Secretary with the order of the Under Secretary dated 21-6-1990, and thereafter sanction was granted for filing the appeal and appeal was preferred on 30-6-1990. ( 4 ) KEEPING the file for three months by the officers of the stature of under Secretary without looking to the file and without caring for expiry of the Limitation is not an act which can be appreciated. This really indicates nothing but a dereliction of duty on the part of these officers, who are expected to act cautiously and expeditiously. There is no reason explained why the file was kept pending from 2nd March, 1990 to 20th of June, 1990 by the Under Secretary and why he did not pass any order. This really indicates nothing but a dereliction of duty on the part of these officers, who are expected to act cautiously and expeditiously. There is no reason explained why the file was kept pending from 2nd March, 1990 to 20th of June, 1990 by the Under Secretary and why he did not pass any order. This inaction is condemnable and when the Under Secretary has been acting like that, it has to be stated that it would be bad and wrong precedent for the subordinate officers. There is a Sanskrit Shloka, I may quote from Bhagwad Gita. "yadyadacharati Shreshtastattadevetaro Janah, sa yatpramanam Kurute Lokastadanuvartate". It means common man follows the deeds and actions of those, who are called Shrestha Jana in Society, the enlightened people in the Society. In the modern Society, those who think to be on high positions in the Government offices, definitely they are Shrestha Janas for those, who are subordinate to them and they should be cautious as their behaviour may lead others to go astray as well. This is a lesson of India's cultural heritage, we must bear in mind and we must be cautious in our action and inaction. ( 5 ) IN the matter of delay in refiling the appeal, nothing has been stated why there has been delay in refiling, except stating in the following terms. "delay in refiling the above appeal is due to bona fide and not intentional. Delay occurred due to purely administrative reasons including correspondence between Government, Advocate General and the District Government Pleader". There is no sufficient explanation for delay and as to why the certified copy of judgment and award of the Reference Court was not supplied to the Advocate General's Office, while it was required to file the appeal and why the application for certified copy of the order of Reference court was not moved earlier than 16th July, 1999, as the endorsement of the Copying Section under the seal indicates that application for certified copy of the Civil Judge's order was moved on 16th of July, 1999 and copy was thereafter delivered on July 23rd, 1999. There is no indication of the date of correspondence. There is no indication of the date of correspondence. ( 6 ) LOOKING to these circumstances and also laches on the part of official of appellant and the Under Secretary as well, I do not think it is not a fit case for condonation of delay in its filing or for condonation of delay in refiling of the appeal. Both the applications are rejected and the appeal is hereby dismissed as time barred. --- *** --- .