ORDER : 1. Our order dated 31-01-2025 reads thus:- "1. We admire the courage with which the State of Madhya Pradesh has been filing Special Leave Petitions in this Court over a period of time with delay of 300/400 days. 2. The above is not the problem. The matter of concern is as to who is taking the decision to challenge a particular order passed by the High Court before the Supreme Court. 3.In the present case, the State preferred a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 before the High Court with delay of 656 days. The State was not able to assign any sufficient cause for this gross delay and, accordingly, the High Court rejected the plea to condone the delay. It is this order which has now been made a subject matter of challenge before this Court by filing the present Special Leave Petition and that too with delay of 177 days. 4.We could have dismissed this petition solely on the ground of delay but we do not intend to do this as we have something else in our mind. 5. We direct the Law Secretary of the State of Madhya Pradesh to remain present before us on 14-2-2025 along with the original files containing the decision taken to challenge the impugned order passed by the High Court declining to condone the delay of 656 days. 6. We would like to know who is that authority who took the decision that the order passed by the High Court is worth challenging before this Court. 7. List on 14-2-2025." 2. Thereafter on 14.02.2025, we, inter-alia, pass the following order:- "1. xxx xxx xxx 2. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, referred to above, Mr. N.P. Singh, Law Secretary, State of Madhya Pradesh is personally present before this Court. 3. Mr. S.V. Raju, the learned Additional Solicitor General has appeared along with two learned counsel Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania and Mr. Venkatesh. 4. Mr. Raju pointed out that the procedure in the State of M.P. is quite different compared to the other States. In the State of M.P., the decision whether to file any appeal before the higher Court is taken by the Collector. Sarad Kumar Singhania and Mr. Venkatesh. 4. Mr. Raju pointed out that the procedure in the State of M.P. is quite different compared to the other States. In the State of M.P., the decision whether to file any appeal before the higher Court is taken by the Collector. He further pointed out that the Law Secretary, who is present before us took charge of the Office sometime on 14-8-2024 and is not aware of anything in the matter. 5. In such circumstances, we would like the concerned Collector to tell us how the decision was taken and in what manner he proposes to take care of the problem. 6. Let the Collector appear before us once with some concrete proposal. We shall look into the proposal and if need be, shall make our own recommendations to ensure that public money is not wasted by the State for such dead litigations. 7. We also expect the State Government to evolve some mechanism so that this problem can be taken care of and public money is saved. 8. On the next date of hearing, the authority concerned shall provide us with the true English translation of the notings which are in the vernacular language as contained in the original file so far as the present litigation is concerned. 9. On the next date of hearing, Law Secretary need not remain present. 10. Post it on 21-3-2025." 3. In pursuance of our order dated 14.02.2025, Mr. Priyank Mishra, Collector, Dhar, State of Madhya Pradesh is personally present before this Court. Mr. S.V.Raju, the learned ASG has appeared for the Collector. 4. Today when the matter was taken up for further hearing Mr. Raju brought to our notice that a detailed affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State duly affirmed by Mr. Priyank Mishra, Collector, Dhar. The Affidavit reads thus:- "I, Priyank Mishra S/o Late Ramesh Chandra Mishra aged about 35 years, posted as Collector, District- Dhar, Madhya Pradesh do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under: 1. That, I posted as Collector, District- Dhar, Madhya Pradesh and I am competent to depose the present affidavit on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh. 2. That, I posted as Collector, District- Dhar, Madhya Pradesh and I am competent to depose the present affidavit on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh. 2. That the present affidavit is being filed in compliance of the order dated 14.02.2025 passed by this Hon'ble Court in the above said petition regarding the aspect of cause of delay in filing of the present SLP and the steps and mechanisms needed to ensure that public money is not wasted by the State in some litigations. [SUGGESTIONS] 3. That with regards to the suggestions to be undertaken by the state authorities in order to file the petitions timely and steps and mechanisms needed to ensure that public money is not wasted in certain litigations, several suggestions are humbly stated as follows- 3.1 In order to effectively manage litigation issues at District Collector, Dhar I have already constituted a District Level Monitoring Committee and also District Level Complaint Redressal Committee of grievances and control dated 10.12.2024 as per the relevant provisions of M.P. State Litigation Management Policy 2018. The purpose of these committees is to review important legal court cases. It was also suggested that a time limit meeting every week on Monday where review of important cases of High Court / Supreme Court and weekly follow up will be done with the Officer in Charge (OIC) assigned to every case. The functions and duties of OIC of the court case are mentioned in their order of appointment and effective discharge of their duties is key to effective litigation management. The pendency of filling of replies, submission of documents in the court by each OIC is reviewed by the District Collector. In addition, show cause notices (SCN) are also suggested to be issued to OICs who are not able to file replies timely. Copy of the Madhya Pradesh State Litigation Management Policy, 2018 is annexed hereto and marked as ANNNEXURE A-1 [Pg. No.16-35] Copy of the order dated 10.12.2024 regarding constituting a District Level Monitoring Committee and also District Level Complaint Redressal Committee of grievances and control are annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE A-2 [pg no.36-37]and A-3 [pg no.38-39]respectively. 3.2. Copy of the Madhya Pradesh State Litigation Management Policy, 2018 is annexed hereto and marked as ANNNEXURE A-1 [Pg. No.16-35] Copy of the order dated 10.12.2024 regarding constituting a District Level Monitoring Committee and also District Level Complaint Redressal Committee of grievances and control are annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE A-2 [pg no.36-37]and A-3 [pg no.38-39]respectively. 3.2. That as far as, about the monitoring of the cases is concerned, in districts, the state has developed a system of Time Limit meeting every week, and in these meetings, information regarding the filing of the cases in different courts is sought from all OIC's and report is taken from the officer in charge about the development of the cases. That there is also a system of joint commissioner litigation, in Division who inform districts about development of the cases, and the further course of action to be taken up by the OICs. 3.3. However, there are still cases of delays in filing of appeals/reviews/SLPs even after the existence of a management system as described in points mentioned above. In this regard Section 27 of the MP State Litigation Management Policy 2018 is reproduced as under - 27. Limitation; Timely filing of Appeals/Reviews/SLPs. (27.3) Whenever an order is passed by a court, the officer in-charge shall obtain opinion of Government Advocate on it and bring the matter to the notice of the competent authority. In case it is decided to prefer an Appeal/Review/S.L.P. such a decision is to be taken well within the time. If there is delay in filing Appeal/Review/S.L.P. or failure to comply with a court order, leading to filing of a contempt petition without sufficient cause, the matter shall be examined by the concerned department to find out reasons for such delay/failures and also to identify the erring officer/employee responsible for such delay/failure and take suitable action against them, if there were no reasonable and sufficient grounds for such delay/lapse. (27.4) If a Writ Appeal/Review/S.L.P. is dismissed by a High Court or the Supreme Court on the grounds of laches by rejecting application for condonation of delay, the concerned department shall invariably inquire into the matter to fix the responsibility and ensure that appropriate disciplinary action is taken against the erring officer/official/advocate. 4. In relation to the above, the M.P. State Litigation Management Policy of 2018 was observed and following suggestions are forwarded. 4. In relation to the above, the M.P. State Litigation Management Policy of 2018 was observed and following suggestions are forwarded. A. in case of court orders against the Government, the Government Advocate / Advocate General's Office should send a copy of the decision in the 3 days for obtaining legal opinion on whether the order requires to be challenged. B. That the concerned advocate or Advocate General should endeavour to give such opinion within 10 days from the receipt of the such request. C. After receipt of legal opinion, the same along with necessary documents to be forwarded to the Concerned Department within 2 days from the date of receipt of legal opinion by the concerned department. D. That Officer In-charge (OIC) should be appointed within 7 days from the receipt of the legal opinion of the Government Advocate or Advocate General. E. That a time limit of 20 days is suggested for obtaining necessary permission in filing necessary Appeals/Revision/SLP. The OIC will be responsible to see that the above time limit is adhered to. F. In case any OIC gets transferred, he should hand over the charge of the court cases to his successor within 7 days, highlighting the urgency to pertaining to limitation of the matter. 5. In order to control delays a proposal has been forwarded to the State to create an online portal for Court Case Management System (CCMS) at the state level so that there is no time loss in forwarding the communication. Such a Digital platform or Portal alongwith an e-filing of replies could be made operational which could in turn ease out the problem of delay. The basic features required in the proposed CCMS are mentioned below. An online CCMS portal should be developed, where separate accounts are created for a. Advocate General, Additional Advocate General, all Government Advocates (GA) b. All Joint Commissioners (Litigation) c. All departments at State Level and all District Collectors d. All OICs (once they appointed) of court cases. 6. The CCMS should also have basic legal training modules for officer in charge/ Officers of state. SOPs should be designed for officers to file suits/ WPs/ Appeals in different courts according to their hierarchy. 7. 6. The CCMS should also have basic legal training modules for officer in charge/ Officers of state. SOPs should be designed for officers to file suits/ WPs/ Appeals in different courts according to their hierarchy. 7. That basic legal training be imparted to the officer in charge/Officers of state by the General Administrative Department of the state, about basic legal system and structure and an SOP should be designed for officers to file suits/ WPs/ Appeals in different courts according to their hierarchy. 8. That the officer in charge, should be able to upload his tentative draft reply and documents on the Portal so designed which could be finally formally formulated as a final reply by the government advocate, who has been assigned the case from the AAG's end. 9. That the Officer in charge (OIC) should also be made responsible about their duties. The Portals so designed wherein constant monitoring system from both ends could be effected should be developed. ADDITIONAL PROPOSED SUGGESTIONS 10. That the full computerisation of the Additional Advocate General office in the State to be done and if any decision of the court is against government, then it should be the primary responsibility of the Government Advocate, decided by AAG, in advance, to send the decision of the court, with related documents along with his opinion to the concerned District Collector, so that speedy action of granting permission to file appeal and appoint, officer in charge, can be done from the district at the earliest. 11. If any decision of the court is against government, then it should be the primary responsibility of the government advocate, decided by AAG, in advance, to send the decision of the court, with related documents along with his opinion to the concerned District Collector through his/her online account on CCMS. On receiving such an advice from the GA, the District Collector shall immediately appoint OIC in the case and create his/her login credentials on the CCMS portal. This will ensure speedy action in granting of permission to file appeal as well as appointing officer in charge. 12. Once the OIC receives the credentials, it shall be the duty of the OIC to go through all case related documents and upload any additional documents on the portal itself. This will ensure speedy action in granting of permission to file appeal as well as appointing officer in charge. 12. Once the OIC receives the credentials, it shall be the duty of the OIC to go through all case related documents and upload any additional documents on the portal itself. The OIC should also be able to upload his tentative draft reply on the Portal which could be finally dressed up as a final reply by the government advocate assigned to the case by AG Office. It shall be the duty of the Government Advocate to effectively prepare the final reply in a time bound manner. The GA should also hold online video conferencing sessions with the OIC to discuss the case. 13. This feature can significantly contribute to timely filing of replies because OICs are usually officers posted in districts faraway from the seat of High Court and AG Office (such as Indore to Neemuch almost 275 Km, Indore to Burhanpur almost 200 Km). It is not feasible for the OICs, who are usually SDO or Tehsildar to frequently travel to High Court to meet AAG to get the file marked and then to have multiple physical meetings with GA to get the reply drafted. It is also important to mention here that SDO and Tehsildars are also Executive Magistrates who are sometimes not able to travel High Courts due to frequent law and order duties. Therefore , the portal based online system can significantly reduce the need of OIC to frequently be present in the AG Office. 14. With respect to the powers of District Collectors to give permission to file SLP on the basis of advice of Government Advocate, the suggestion is that whenever there is a delay is caused by some circumstances or in getting the opinion of the Government Advocate, and the limitation period is over, then the matter to file the appeal should be adjudicated by or should be addressed to the law department of the state, and the law department should decide whether the permission to file the appeal in High court or Supreme Court should be given or not. 15. 15. That whenever there is a delay is caused by some circumstances or other, in getting the opinion of the Government Advocate, and the limitation period is over, then the matter to file the appeal should be adjudicated by or should be addressed to the law department of the state, and it should decide whether the permission to file the appeal in High court or Supreme Court should be given or not. 16. That any other suggestions/recommendations for reforms in State Litigation Management from this Hon'ble Court will be implemented. 17. It is respectfully submitted that the Answering deponent who assumed office since 14.11.2022 as Collector, Dhar, MP. That the chronology with respect to the cause of delay in filing the present petition is as follows, the following submissions are based on the basis of the note sheets available in the record of the instant case. a. That on 12.01.2019, the Ld. First Appellate Court passed its decision. English translated copy and photo copy of the original notesheet duly signed on 4.3.2019 is annexed hereto and marked as ANNNEXURE A-4. [ages 40-44] b. That on 14.03.2019, the Government Advocate informed the authorities that the Ld. First Appellate Court has allowed the appeal of Gokul Chandra (respondent herein) in FA No. 30/2018 on 12.01.2019 and the Court's decision is against the Government. c. Draft of letter for approval to DD(P). English translated copy and photo copy of the original notesheet duly signed on 9.4.2019 is annexed hereto and marked as ANNNEXURE A-5(pages40-44). d. That on 12.04.2019, Additional Collector wrote a letter to Government Advocate for his opinion. English translated copy and photo copy of the original notesheet dated 12.4.2019 is annexed hereto and marked as ANNNEXURE A-. [Pg. No.40-44) e. That on 29.05.2019, a letter of request from the Government Advocate to provide the documents for filing being processed. English translated copy and photo copy of the original notesheet dated 29.5.2019 is annexed hereto and marked as ANNNEXURE A-.7 [Pg. No.44-45] f. That in the note-sheet dated 19.02.2020, it is mentioned that Naib Tehsildar Digthan by his letter no. 174/Reader/2019-20 dated 11.02.2020 informed that in First Appeal No. 30/2018 a decision has been passed against Govt. on 12.01.2019 and appeal of Gokul Chandra (Respondent) has been allowed. The Naib Tehsildar also sought the opinion of the Govt. No.44-45] f. That in the note-sheet dated 19.02.2020, it is mentioned that Naib Tehsildar Digthan by his letter no. 174/Reader/2019-20 dated 11.02.2020 informed that in First Appeal No. 30/2018 a decision has been passed against Govt. on 12.01.2019 and appeal of Gokul Chandra (Respondent) has been allowed. The Naib Tehsildar also sought the opinion of the Govt. Advocate, and the Government Advocate on 10.02.2020 opined to file Second Appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, by virtue of his letter no. 195/GA/2020 dated 10.02.2020 along with a brief of appeal proposal. English translated copy and photo copy of the original notesheet dated 19.2.2020 is annexed hereto and marked as ANNNEXURE A-8. [Pages45-46) g. That the Govt. Advocate Shree Suresh Chandra Jalodia gave his opinion to file an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court by his letter dated 10.02.2020 and the Naib Tehsildar did not pass the mutation order in favour of the respondent. h. That the Naib Tahsildar wrote letter dated 11.02.2020 to the Collector when the respondent filed mutation case in the court, Case No. 14/A-6/2019-20 for mutation of his name on land survey no. 199/1 area 3.815 of village Karaundiya Tehsil Pithampur Dist. Dhar. In this case tehsildar in his order sheet 27.07.2019 elaborated upon the case extensively and wrote a letter to Govt. Advocate to give his opinion about filing of appeal in High Court thorough SDO (R). i. That on the basis of Naib Tahsildar letter dated 11.02.2020, SDO (R) Dhar was appointed OIC for this case for filing of second appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh by Collector, Dist.- Dhar on 29.02.2020. j. That again opinion was sought on 8.10.2020 from the Govt. Advocate regarding the opinion for appeal to be filed but note sheet recorded that no opinion was received from GA. English translated copy and photo copy of the original notesheet dated 8.10.2020 is annexed hereto and marked as ANNNEXURE A-9. [Pg.47-48) k. Thereafter, many reminders dated 14.09.2020, 15.10.2020, 05.11.2020, 03.12.2020 and 25.1.2021 were issued to SDO (R) Dhar to complete the proceeding of filing of appeal in High Court and inform office accordingly. Even Collector Dhar also issued a D/O letter dated 27.01.2021 to SDO (R) Dhar to do the needful. English translated copy and photo copy of the original notesheet dated 14.09.2020, 15.10.2020, 06.11.2020, 03.12.2020 and 25.1.2021 are annexed hereto and marked as ANNNEXURE A-10. Even Collector Dhar also issued a D/O letter dated 27.01.2021 to SDO (R) Dhar to do the needful. English translated copy and photo copy of the original notesheet dated 14.09.2020, 15.10.2020, 06.11.2020, 03.12.2020 and 25.1.2021 are annexed hereto and marked as ANNNEXURE A-10. [Pgages 49-55) l. That during the period from 29.02.2020 to 06.11.2020 and up to the final filing of second appeal in the Hon'ble High Court on 01.02.2021, Shree Satyanarayan Darro was the SDO (R) Dhar and OIC of the case. m. That there is a delay of 656 days in filing the second appeal in Hon'ble High Court and again a delay of 177 days in filing this SLP, but it was not because of negligence or not so that no attention was paid regarding this issue, in fact, as soon as the decision dated 12.01.2019 of the Ld. First Appellate Court in first appeal came to notice in the Collector's Office by government advocate's letter dated 14.03.2019, proceedings were initiated on note-sheet and opinion of the government advocate, about filing of second appeal and further course of action was sought from Government Advocate, and once the opinion of the government advocate was received, thereafter the Sub Divisional officer Revenue, Dhar was appointed the OIC of the case immediately on 20.02.2020 and he was instructed to file the Second Appeal before Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench. n. That due to the outbreak of the Corona in March 2020 and subsequent lock-down, the entire administration got involved to cope up with the hazardous calamity and beside all reminders, from time to time, the OIC SDO (revenue) couldn't file the second appeal in time because of which the delay was caused. o. That it is respectfully submitted that in this Hon'ble Court's order dated 10.01.2022 in MA 21/2022, MA 665/2021, Suo Motu WP (C) No.03/2020 - Cognizance for extension of Limitation, there was a relaxation given regarding condonation of delay in filing petitions during the Corona period. p. That the Second Appeal No. 156/2021 was dismissed on 05.04.2024 on the ground of delay of 656 days, which was not condoned by the Hon'ble High Court. q. Since the decision of Hon'ble High Court on 05.04.2024, opinion of Government Advocate of AAG office, Indore was sought by SDO (R) Pithampur, by his letter No. 1150/Reader-1/2024 dated 18.06.2024 and the Govt. q. Since the decision of Hon'ble High Court on 05.04.2024, opinion of Government Advocate of AAG office, Indore was sought by SDO (R) Pithampur, by his letter No. 1150/Reader-1/2024 dated 18.06.2024 and the Govt. Advocate gave his opinion vide his letter No. 5718/dated 21.06.2024, that an SLP should be preferred before this Hon'ble Court immediately, so that proper facts can be brought before this Hon'ble Court. r. Letter No. 2571/Reader 1/2024 dated 13.11.2024 from SDO regarding appropriate steps for filing the SLP. English translated copy and photo copy of the original notesheet dated 2.12.2024, 03.12.2024 and 4.12.2024 is annexed hereto and marked as ANNNEXURE A-. [Pages 56-58) s. Hence after this, a permission was granted by District Collector to SDO (R) Pithampur to prefer an SLP and appointed him SDO (R) Pithampur OIC, who filed or preferred this SLP, Civil Diary No. 61179/2024 on 28.12.2024. t. That vide note sheet dated 03.02.2025 the officers posted as SDO [R] during the period from 12.01.2019 to 01.02.2021is being sought from the OIC establishment section of Collectorate Dhar and SCN are issued to them on 07.02.2024. English translated copy and photo copy of the original notesheet dated 03.02.2025 is annexed hereto and marked as ANNNEXURE A-.12 [Pages 59-60) 18. Necessity of filing instant SLP The Ld. Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent on the ground that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their case on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, hence the suit of the plaintiff is was rejected with regards to the land in question being Agricultural land survey No. 199/1, area 3.815 hectares situated at village Karondiya, Dist. Dhar, MP. , 19. Market value of land in question is Rs. 6 Crores 50 lacs. That the importance of filing this SLP is that if the state authorities fail to save the government land in question and which has market value of approximately of Rs.6,50,00,000/= Rs Six Crores fifty lacs at present, a precedent would be set that in the cases related to ceiling matter, after 30 or more, anyone can file a civil suit and get a decision in their favour besides the fact that in ceiling related matters, jurisdiction of civil court is barred. In this a way, the respondent has established his right over the precious Government land which has been declared surplus land long back and now is recorded in revenue records as Govt land merely on the ground of delay. 20. That if a government land is lost merely on the ground of delay, and if this happens in this case of state of Madhya Pradesh, thereafter, it may set a wrong precedent and may affect the other states also. That the importance of this case is to save the government land at any cost, though there is a long delay, but the intention of the authorities is very clear to save the government land and hence the permission was given to file the SLP before this Hon'ble Court. 21. That the present compliance affidavit has been filed bonafidely in their best letter and spirit by the State of M.P. in compliance of the order dated 14.02.2025 passed by this Hon'ble Court and in the interest of justice." 5. We have looked into the affidavit. It appears that the deponent has made few suggestions to streamline the entire I procedure which the State should adopt while taking appropriate decision to any judicial order before any Court i.e. High Court or the Supreme Court. 6. We were given to understand that these suggestions will now be put forward before the State Government. 7. We are told that the suggestions have already been forwarded to the General Administration Department (GAD) as well as to the Department of Law, State of M.P. There was a good reason for us to take cognizance of the issue in question. Our two orders are referred to above self-explanatory in nature. 8. We direct the GAD as well as the legal Department, State of Madhya Pradesh to look into the suggestions as contained in the affidavit, referred to above and work out appropriate modalities so as to ensure that in future the matters are not filed with gross delay just for the sake of filing. If the Government has no sufficient cause to assign for the delay it should stop at that stage & accept the verdict. There is no point in just preferring any appeal or petition for the sake of filing it. If the Government has no sufficient cause to assign for the delay it should stop at that stage & accept the verdict. There is no point in just preferring any appeal or petition for the sake of filing it. We expect the State of Madhya Pradesh to be very careful in future and see to it that all the suggestions are considered in their true perspective. We propose to close this matter at this stage. 9. We hope and trust that in future we may not have to come across any such type of case. 10. We make it clear that in future if we come across any such case, the Collector concerned will be personally held liable. 11. This petition stands dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits. 12. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.