JUDGMENT : Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the appellants. Shri S. C. Bagadiya, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Dharmendra Jain, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This intra Court appeal by the State Government is directed against the order dated 31-7-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby he has allowed respondents' Writ Petition No. 1274/2000. 3. The respondents filed the aforesaid writ petition seeking quashment of the notice dated 24-1-1997 issued under section 10(3) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976, the act of the State Government in taking over the possession on 22-9-1997 and also the order of mutation in revenue record passed pursuant thereto. 4. Learned Single Judge, after considering the averments made in the writ petition and in the return, allowed the writ petition vide order dated 31-7-2006. The operative paragraph of the said order dated 31-7-2006 reads thus :- "11. Undisputedly land in question was an agricultural land which is evident from the statement submitted by the predecessor in title of the petitioner and also by the petitioner and thereafter from the order of exemption Annexure P/7, wherein repeatedly it has been mentioned that the land is agricultural land. Apart from this the document Annexure P/8, whereby the possession as alleged to have been taken it is specifically mentioned that the crop of soya is standing on Survey Nos. 392, 394 and 435 and houses are constructed on Survey No. 220. 12. It is true that after taking the alleged possession vide Annexure P/8 on 23-9-1997, no appeal has been filed by the petitioner under section 33 of the Act. The validity of the earlier orders passed by the competent authority under section 10 was also not challenged, however, the exemption was granted to the petitioner vide Annexure P/7 order of the State Government dated 22-12-1997. Since, the petitioner was in possession and the exemption was granted to the petitioner, therefore, if no appeal has been filed by the petitioner then it cannot be said that this Court cannot examine the action of the State in its writ jurisdiction. 13. Since, the petitioner was in possession and the exemption was granted to the petitioner, therefore, if no appeal has been filed by the petitioner then it cannot be said that this Court cannot examine the action of the State in its writ jurisdiction. 13. Since, the petitioner continued in possession though out and on 22-12-1997 the exemption was granted to the petitioner and in the return submitted by the State, it has been specifically mentioned that the petitioner was allowed to remain as it is and permitted to use for the purpose for which he wanted to use makes it clear that at no point of time the possession was taken from the petitioner. Apart from this the document Exhibit P/8 appears to be a paper possession. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that petitioner is estopped to challenge the action in view of the provisions of section 3 of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. In view of this petition stands allowed and the action of the respondents under section 10 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act stands quashed." 5. The said order passed by the learned Single Judge is under challenge in this appeal. 6. There is, however, enormous and inordinate delay of 392 days (1 year and 27 days) in filing the appeal. 7. We, therefore, have examined whether there is any sufficient cause for condonation of such huge delay. 8. Initially, an application seeking condonation of delay was filed along with the memo of appeal by stating the following reasons :- "2. It is most respectfully submitted that the Officer-in-charge of the case after the decision dated 29-7-2006 of the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 1274/2000, applied for the certified copy of the order. 3. It is respectfully submitted that after receiving the certified copy, an opinion of the Government Advocate was sought in the matter. The opinion of the Government Advocate for preferring Writ Appeal is received. The Officer-in-charge of the case after receiving the said opinion forwarded the same to the higher Authorities at Bhopal for seeking necessary sanction to file the Writ Appeal before this Hon'ble Court. 4. Untimately the permission is received by the Officer-in-charge of the case and immediately thereafter contacted the Office of the Advocate General at Indore for preferring the appeal. The Officer-in-charge of the case after receiving the said opinion forwarded the same to the higher Authorities at Bhopal for seeking necessary sanction to file the Writ Appeal before this Hon'ble Court. 4. Untimately the permission is received by the Officer-in-charge of the case and immediately thereafter contacted the Office of the Advocate General at Indore for preferring the appeal. However, as the record of the case was voluminous, the same was collected by the Officer-in-charge of the case and thereafter only the appeal is drafted and filed before this Hon'ble Court. It is most respectfully submitted that the delay of 398 days caused in filing the present Writ Appeal, being bona fide on the part of the Appellants, deserve to be condoned, in the interest of justice." 9. Thereafter, an affidavit dated 18-9-2012 of Ravindra Singh, Officer-in-charge of the case was filed, stating the following reasons and explaining the cause of delay:- XXX XXX XXX 10. It is pertinent to mention that thereafter another affidavit of one Alok Singh, Officer-in-charge of the case was filed; explanation in detail the cause and reasons for the delay in filing the appeal, which reads thus : - XXX XXX XXX 11. The respondents have filed a reply to the application for condonation of delay and stated that the appellants have not shown sufficient reasons so as to condone such a huge delay. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on the prayer for condonation of delay. 13. The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General vs. Living Media India Ltd., AIR 2012 SC 1506 is directly on the point. In this case, there was a delay of 427 days in filing the appeal before the Supreme Court against the judgment of the High Court and the certified copy of the High Court judgment was applied after four months with no explanation why it was not applied for within a reasonable time. The Supreme Court, after examining other dates mentioned in the affidavit of the person-in-charge of the case to justify the delay found that there was delay at every stage with no explanation for the cause of delay. The Supreme Court also took serious note of the casual manner in which the Government departments are functioning showing virtually no respect to the law of limitation. The Supreme Court also took serious note of the casual manner in which the Government departments are functioning showing virtually no respect to the law of limitation. And, while dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay, the Supreme Court has made the following observation : "The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the Government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The Government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for Government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few." 14. In yet another recent decision, the Supreme Court in Maniben Devraj Shah vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan, Mumbai, AIR 2012 SC 1629 has held that in cases involving the State and its agencies/instrumentalities, the Court can take note of the fact that sufficient time is taken in the decision making process but no premium can be given for total lethargy or utter negligence on the part of the officers of the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities and the applications filed by them for condonation of delay cannot be allowed as a matter of course by accepting the plea that dismissal of the matter on the ground of bar of limitation will cause injury to the public interest. 15. From the averments made in the applications and the affidavits seeking condonation of delay, it is clear that after receipt of the certified copy of the order on 7-8-2006, opinion was given by the Government Advocate for filing the appeal on 13-9-2006 stating therein that limitation to file an appeal is 45 days. Thereafter, the sanction of Law Department was sought, which was received on 15-11-2006. On 15-12-2006, the Government conveyed approval for filing the appeal. Thereafter, the sanction of Law Department was sought, which was received on 15-11-2006. On 15-12-2006, the Government conveyed approval for filing the appeal. Thereafter, on 4-1-2007, Additional Collector contacted Office of the Additional Advocate General for preparation of an appeal. It has been stated that thereafter the Office of Collector was shifted in new building. The record was misplaced, which was traced in June, 2007 and thereafter in the months of August, September and October, 2007, the appeal was prepared and drafted and ultimately filed on 2-11-2007. 16. It is clear from the aforesaid averments that a very casual explanation of delay has been furnished, more particularly from 4th January to 2nd November, 2007. No one pursued the matter seriously and no serious efforts appear to have been taken during this period for filing the appeal. 17. The aforesaid averments made in the affidavits clearly show that there is an unexplained delay from January, 2007 till the end of October, 2007. Even after receiving the record in July, 2007, there is no explanation as to why appeal was not promptly prepared and filed. Apparently, even from the day one, the authorities concerned have not evinced diligence in pursuing the matter to this Court by taking appropriate steps. The State has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reason sufficient to condone such a huge delay. 18. In view of the aforesaid background facts and keeping in view the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Office of the Chief Post Master General vs. Living Media India Limited (supra) and Maniben Devraj Shah vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai (supra), we find no sufficient cause to condone the delay. 19. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed on the ground of delay. Appeal dismissed.