Judgment :- Ignorance, incompetence, irresponsible conduct of not only the officials of the State Government but also of their lawyers is monumental and is to be believed. This above appeal is only one such illustration of the state of affairs that prevail in the litigation side of the State Government, whose interest inevitably suffers by the inept handling by their counsel, by the irresponsible conduct and attitude of the officials running the State Government and the luke worm approach of the courts to this tendency which has only encouraged the officials and the lawyers of the State Government to remain in a state of slumber and never to wake up. This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) by the State Government, through the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hemavathi Reservoir Project, Holenarasipura is for the purpose of reducing the market value of the land acquired by the State Government from the respondent as determined by the Reference court, in a reference at the instance of the land owner, as determined in terms of the judgment and award of the Reference Court dated 19/04/2003 rendered in LAC.NO.19/2000 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Holenarasipura. The appeal papers were presented through office of the Advocate General on 05/06/2004. The subject matter is compensation payable to the owner of the house property with appurtenant land, situate at Mabinakere village, Holenarasipura taluk which got submerged after the construction of Hemavathi Reservoir across Hemavathi river and prior to that the State Government had taken steps by issue of a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, to acquire lands that were likely to get sub-merged in the back waters of the reservoir and the respondent’s house was one such property. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had determined the compensation payable to the owner in respect of the building and the land appurtenant to it, at Rs.45,220/-. The aggrieved owner, had sought for reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act and as a consequence, the learned Judge of the civil court has enhanced the compensation payable to Rs.4,52,280/- by determining the value of the building to be at Rs.250/- per sq.mt. The aggrieved owner, had sought for reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act and as a consequence, the learned Judge of the civil court has enhanced the compensation payable to Rs.4,52,280/- by determining the value of the building to be at Rs.250/- per sq.mt. And the value of vacant land at Rs.25/- per sq.mt as against the valuation of Rs.25.76/- per sq.mt for house and at Rs.3/- per sq.mt for vacant land respectively as had been determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The Special Land Acquisition Officer is in appeal against the judgment and award of the Reference Court complaining that the enhancement is unrealistic, on the higher side and exhorbitant and also that the Reference Court has committed a mistake in duplicating the compensation for the land portion on which there is construction as the compensation for land is awarded both while valuing the building part and also while valuing the vacant land. The appeal papers had not been presented in a proper manner and it is only after several listing of the case for orders before this court regarding non-compliance of on the defects pointed out by the registry in presenting the appeal papers were made ready by October 2004 and as per the order dated 27/10/2004, this court directed issue of notice on the application of I.A.No.2/04 for condonation of delay as there was a delay of 287 days in preferring the appeal. It is thereafter the appellant and its counsel have exhibited their phenomenal negligence and incompetence. No proper efforts appear to have been made either to furnish fresh process fee nor the correct address of the respondent for service of notice, after the initial effort failed. In this state of affairs this court as per the order dated 06/10/2009 had granted one more weeks time for furnishing fresh process fee, correct address and issue of fresh notice for such compliance. Nothing appears to have happened and therefore, the matter was against listed on 20/01/2010 and this court passed the following order: “NKPJ & BSGJ: One week’s time granted at the request of the learned A.G. appearing for appellant to furnish fresh PF and CA to issue notice to respondents. In addition to that A.G. is permitted to take hand summons to R-1. In addition to that A.G. is permitted to take hand summons to R-1. Office is directed to issue hand summons forthwith to enable him to serve hand summons to R-1 along with memo as requested” Even thereafter nothing happened as neither the office of the Advocate General nor the appellant appears to have bothered to take further steps and the following orders were passed on 25/02/2010 and 09/08/2010, respectively: “DVSKJ/KNKJ: 25/02/2010 Sri N.D. Jayadevappa, learned government Pleader submits that needful has been done. Registry to verify and ensure that the respondent is issued with notice” “DVSKJ & KNKJ: 09/08/2010 Sri Anjana Murthy, Government Advocate has vanished. List on 10/08/2010.” In this state of affairs, we directed reissue of hand summons as per our order dated 10/08/2010. Thereafter the appellant / its Advocate received hand summons from the registry on the same day for effecting service on the respondent. It is thereafter the learned Government Advocate had presented a memo in the registry, along with acknowledgement for serving hand summons on the respondent. Therefore, the registry listed the memo for orders before the court on 13/08/2010. This court noticing that a memo will not suffice for the purpose of holding that the respondent has been duly served, further passed the following order: “DVSKJ & KNKJ: 30/08/2010 MFA No.4091 of 2004 In this appeal by the Land Acquisition Officer under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, there is a delay of 287 days in preferring the appeal. Though the appeal is of the year 2004, the appellant had not been successful in effecting service on the sole respondent – owner and under such circumstances, we had permitted the appellant to serve the respondent through hand summons. The appellant has now filed a memo for having effected service, which we cannot accept as it is very necessary for the person who has effected service personally on the respondent should file a sworn statement before this court for having served on the respondent. Therefore, memo is rejected. Affidavit to be filed within a week’s time. If, in the meanwhile, the respondent enters appearance through counsel, the appellant will be absolved of the requirement of filing an affidavit”. Therefore, memo is rejected. Affidavit to be filed within a week’s time. If, in the meanwhile, the respondent enters appearance through counsel, the appellant will be absolved of the requirement of filing an affidavit”. It is thereafter an affidavit sworn to by the Special Land Acquisition Officer has been filed in the registry on 02/09/2010 and it is for orders on this affidavit and to hold service of notice on the respondent as sufficient, the matter is listed before the court today. Sri Sangamesh Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for the appellant State Government submits that service of summons on the respondent be held sufficient in the wake of the affidavit sworn to by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and placed before this court. We find the affidavit sworn to by the Special Land Acquisition Officer does not serve the purpose for holding the service of summons on the respondent as sufficient for the simple reason, that it is not the Special Land Acquisition Officer who has effected service of notice on the respondent, but as stated in the affidavit itself, service of notice is effected by a revenue inspector to whom hand summons had been entrusted for serving it on the respondent. An affidavit of service of notice on the party can be sworn to only by the person who has effect the service and has physically served and handed over the notice to the party to whom it is intended and not by any other person. Therefore, the affidavit filed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, is not adequate or sufficient to hold that the respondent has been duly served in person. Service of notice on a respondent, in any matter is a basic requirement, not only to conform with the principles of natural justice but also a requirement in terms of law governing the procedure before civil courts, to comply with the same. In our legal system which is adversary in nature, the adversary should always be given sufficient opportunity to come before the court and have his or her say in the matter vis-à-vis the complaint/grievance/ case of the plaintiff or the appellant. Therefore, effecting service of the notice of the proceedings on defendants/respondents is a must and should be define and cannot be left to imagination or chance or even to speculation. Therefore, effecting service of the notice of the proceedings on defendants/respondents is a must and should be define and cannot be left to imagination or chance or even to speculation. While effecting service of notice on the defendant/respondent it is the duty of the serving person to properly identify the person as the very person to whom, the notice is intended to be issued and served and then effect service on him, get his acknowledgement and thereafter to file an affidavit for having done so and that affidavit alone will be the one that enables the court to pass an order that the respondent has been duly served. Normally such service of notice is effected by sending it through the postal department of by the court official or in some case through an officer of the State Government either on the revenue side or the police personnel depending upon the nature of the case. In the present case as in the normal course of effecting service, notice was sent through post and as did not serve the purpose later though hand summons and with the appellant being the Special Land Acquisition Officer of the State Government a revenue officer himself was given to the appellant to collect hand summons and to get it served on the respondent and to submit a report in this regard and to file an affidavit of service. While the affidavit of service is filed it is not sworn to by the official serving the notice of summons on the respondent but by the Special Land Acquisition Officer who has not actually effected service of notice on the respondent. While the affidavit of service is filed it is not sworn to by the official serving the notice of summons on the respondent but by the Special Land Acquisition Officer who has not actually effected service of notice on the respondent. In this state of affairs we cannot hold service as on the respondent as sufficient, on the basis of the affidavit of the Special Land Acquisition Officer as the Special Land Acquisition Officer does not himself know, whether the respondent has been effectively and actually served with the notice of the appeal proceedings filed service in the year 2004 which was delayed by 287 days even on the date of filing of the appeal and a further delay of 6 years, only gets added to this initial delay of 287 days and it is not as if though the delay gets arrested at 287 days on the presentation of the appeal, as the notice is not issued hitherto to the sole respondent and respondent has not become aware of the appeal having been filed. Learned Government Advocate prays for some time! We grant a week’s time to enable the appellant to place before the court the affidavit of service by the very revenue inspector who it has actually effected service on the respondent. It is high time that the officials of the State Government, become a little more conversant with the court and litigation procedure and also ensure that Government Advocates who conduct the case for the State Government are also made conversant with the duties and the responsibilities and the State Government takes commensurate steps and measure, if the interest of the State Government is to be protected in a proper and effective manner before the court. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary to the State Government and also a copy to the secretary, Department of Law and Parliamentary Affairs, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore-1, for information and for necessary action.