Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 413 (BOM)

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. DATTU MAHADEO MARKAD

2009-03-25

K.K.TATED

body2009
Judgment : - Heard learned AGP Mr. S. P. Dound, for the applicant and learned counsel Mr. M. S. Patil, for the respondents. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents undertakes to file his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondents in Civil Application No. 6861 of 2008, 6862 of 2008 within two weeks from today. 2. The present civil application preferred by original Respondent-State of Maharashtra for condonation of 1336 days delay in preferring appeals against judgment and award dated 22-6-2004 passed by Civil Judge Senior Division, Osmanabad. The learned AGP submitted that it remained on the part of Government Pleader, High Court, Aurangabad to file the present appeals immediately because they received typed copies of judgment and order from acquiring body on 25-4-2008. Not only that the Demand Draft for payment of court fees received from acquiring body on 22-2-2007. Not only because of the procedure as required for filing appeal on behalf of the State of Maharashtra, there is delay in preferring the present appeal. 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent filed affidavit in reply in Civil Application No. 6859 of 2008 and Civil Application No. 6860 of 2008 opposing the present civil application. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent vehemently opposed the present civil application for condonation of 1336 days delay in preferring the appeal against the judgment and award dated 22-6-2004 passed by Civil Judge Senior Division, Osmanabad. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent pointed out that the office of the Government Pleader High Court, Aurangabad received sanction and other papers from Law and Judiciary Department on 18-8-2004, but the present appeal carne to be filed on 16-6-2008. There is no explanation for this period in the present civil application. He further pointed out that the applicant failed to file affidavit of acquiring body explaining the delay in providing typed copies of judgment and award and court fees to the office of Government Pleader, High Court, Aurangabad for preferring present appeal. He further submitted that the learned AGP failed to explain the procedure to be followed by the State while filing appeal in this Court. On the basis of this submission, learned Counsel on behalf of respondent submitted that the present civil application be dismissed with costs. 4. He further submitted that the learned AGP failed to explain the procedure to be followed by the State while filing appeal in this Court. On the basis of this submission, learned Counsel on behalf of respondent submitted that the present civil application be dismissed with costs. 4. It is clear from the civil application that though the papers were received in the office of Government Pleader, High Court, Aurangabad, on 18-8-2004, the present appeal carne to be filed on 15-6-2008. There is no explanation for this four years delay in the present civil application. Not only that the applicant failed to file affidavit on behalf of acquiring body to explain the delay in supplying typed copies of judgment and award passed by the reference Court to the office of Government Pleader, High Court, Aurangabad. At the same time, there is no explanation for providing court fees to the Government Pleader, High Court, Aurangabad after two and half years from the date of impugned order passed by the reference. Court. It is clear from this fact that applicant failed to explain the delay of 1336 days in preferring appeal in this Honourable Court. The Apex Court's judgment in the matter of Pundalik Jalam Patil (D) by Lrs. vs. The Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and anr reported in 2008(6), ALL MR. 954 (8. C.) held that the limitation law is same for both the citizen and Government Authorities. Paragraph Nos. 23 and 24 of the same authority read as under: "23. Public interest undoubtedly is a paramount consideration in exercising the courts discretion wherever conferred upon it by the relevant statutes. Pursuing stale claims and multiplicity of proceedings in no manner sub-serves public interest. Prompt and timely payment of compensation to the land loosers facilitating their rehabilitation/resettlement is equally an integral part of public policy. Public interest demands that the State or the beneficiary of acquisition, as the case may be, should not be allowed to indulge in any act to unsettle the settled legal rights accrued in law by restoring to avoidable litigation unless the claimants are guilty of deriving benefit which otherwise not entitled in law in any fraudulent manner. One should not forget the basic fact that what is acquired is not the land but the livelihood of the land loosers. One should not forget the basic fact that what is acquired is not the land but the livelihood of the land loosers. 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 loosers to courts of law years after the termination of legal proceedings would not serve any 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. 24. It is true when the State and its instrumentalities are the applicants seeking condonation of delay they may be entitled to certain amount of latitude but the law of limitation is same for citizen and for Governmental authorities Limitation Act does not provide for a different period to the Government in filing appeals or applications as such. It would be a different matter where the Government makes out a case where public interest was shown to have suffered owing to acts of fraud or collusion on the part of its officers or agents and where the officers were clearly at cross purposes with it. In a given case if any such facts are pleaded or proved they cannot be excluded from consideration and those factors may go into the judicial verdict. In the present case, no such facts are pleaded and proved though a feeble attempt by the learned counsel for the respondent was made to suggest collusion and fraud but without any basis. We cannot entertain the submission made across the Bar without there being any proper foundation in the pleadings." 5. In view of the above mentioned facts and. circumstances, I am of the view that the applicant failed to explain the sufficient cause for preferring present civil application after 1336 days from last date to prefer appeal in this Honourable High Court. In view of this fact, there is no substance in the present civil application and civil application is dismissed with cost of Rs. 1000/-. Applicants are directed to deposit the cost of Rs. 1000/- in each matter in this, Court within six weeks from today. The said cost be recovered from the officer, who is responsible for delay in preferring the present appeal. 1000/-. Applicants are directed to deposit the cost of Rs. 1000/- in each matter in this, Court within six weeks from today. The said cost be recovered from the officer, who is responsible for delay in preferring the present appeal. Respondents original claimants are at liberty to withdraw the said cost. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the present civil application is dismissed. The applicant is entitled for authenticated copy of this order. Application dismissed.