High Court
Legal Reasoning
1 912-CA.1175-24 & ors.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD912 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1175 OF 2024 IN FAST/19390/2020WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2030 OF 2021 INFAST/19390/2020WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2031 OF 2021 INFAST/19390/2020WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2032 OF 2021 INFAST/19900/2020WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2033 OF 2021 INFAST/19900/2020WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2034 OF 2021 INFAST/19905/2020WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2035 OF 2021 INFAST/19905/2020WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2037 OF 2021 INFAST/19910/2020WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2038 OF 2021 INFAST/19910/2020WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2039 OF 2021 INFAST/19926/2020WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2040 OF 2021 INFAST/19926/2020WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1178 OF 2024 INFAST/19905/2020WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1180 OF 2024 INFAST/19926/2020WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1177 OF 2024 INFAST/19910/2020WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1179 OF 2024 INFAST/19900/2020VIKRAM BABRUWAN GUNJALVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE COLLECTOR,OSMANABAD AND ORS...Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Patil Laxmikant C.AGP for Respondents-State : Mrs. R. R. Tandale.Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. A. S. Shelke.... 2 912-CA.1175-24 & ors.odtCORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.DATE :09.02.2024PER COURT :- 1.Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and learnedcounsel for the non-applicants.2.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that theReference Court has granted separate compensation for theland and structure based upon the private valuation reportwithout notice by the valuer. Hence, the amount deposited maynot be disbursed as prayed.3.Learned counsel for the applicants relies on the order ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No.2481 of2021, Gundu Vs. State of Maharashtra and others withconnected matters arising out of a similar project and prayedto release the amount, as per the order of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt. Believing the statement of the learned counsel for theapplicants and considering the order of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt, the following order is passed.ORDER(i)All civil applications for withdrawal of amount areallowed.
Legal Reasoning
3 912-CA.1175-24 & ors.odt(ii)50% of the amount deposited with this Court bereleased without furnishing security, and a balance of50% should be released to them on furnishing securityto the satisfaction of the Registrar (Judicial) of thisCourt, with the accrued interest.(Civil Applications for delay :- CA-2030/21, CA-2037/21, CA-2034/21, CA-2032/21, CA-2039/21)1.Until two days before, the lawyers were pressing for thehearing of the applications for condonation of delay. The Courtexperienced that there were no sufficient causes for preferringthe appeal in time, and there was a considerable delay. TheCourt started testing the cause of actions as per Section 5 ofthe Limitation Act. The lawyers stopped pressing for thehearing of the delay condonation applications. They were onlypressing for a stay. Since morning, this is a third lawyer whosought time to argue on delay condonation applications. ThisCourt observed that they are avoiding this Court and huntingfor a favourable forum. Hence, adjournment is refused. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and thelearned counsel for the respondents. 4 912-CA.1175-24 & ors.odt3.Surprisingly, the learned counsel representing thepersons whose properties have been lost did not oppose theapplications. That shows that he is not discharging his duty asa lawyer to protect the interest of the poor agriculturists whohave lost their lands. His no objection would not make anydifference. The Court has to apply the law and decide thematters as per the requirements of the law. 4.The reference Court passed the award on 17.07.2014.The appeal period is 90 days from the date of the award.However, the appeals have been preferred against theimpugned awards, after around six years. There was aninordinate delay in lodging the first appeals.5. Learned counsel for the appellants, referring to thecontents of the applications for delay condonation, has arguedthat they received the certified copies on 04.09.2014. Then,applicant No.1 sent a proposal for the legal opinion ofMaharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation Ltd.,Pune. The competent Authority opined that the award shouldbe challenged in the appeal on 24.11.2014. The DeputyEngineer referred the documents to the earlier panel lawyer on09.12.2014. He was requested to collect the papers and fees.Applicant No.1 handed over the cheque to the earlier lawyer 5 912-CA.1175-24 & ors.odton the panel on 27.07.2018. Thereafter, applicant No.1remained under the impression that the first appeals were filedand are pending. Thereafter, in 2019 the panel advocates werechanged, and the present cases were entrusted to the presentcounsel appearing for the appellants. The present lawyerinformed applicant No.1 by letter dated 27.01.2020 that he didnot receive the first appeal numbers. Thereafter, they tried tocontact the earlier panel lawyer. Applicant No.1, after anextensive search on the High Court website, learnt that the firstappeals were not filed. He took the date of the knowledge ofnot filing the appeals in March 2020, and then he further tookthe shelter of a lockdown of the COVID-19 pandemic.Thereafter, on 04.07.2020, he applied for a fresh applicationfor certified copies. He received the certified copies on14.07.2020. Then, he deposited the Court fee on 27.05.2020and asked the panel lawyer to take urgent steps to file anappeal.6.In a nutshell, the reasons for the delay were the delay inapproval and financial sanctions for court fees. These areprevalent grounds and causes for condonation of delay inpreferring appeals by Government Officials. It has beenclaimed that causes were unintentional and not deliberate. He 6 912-CA.1175-24 & ors.odtis taking the shelter of the official procedures for making non-budgetary provisions for court fees, expenses andadministrative works. He has also pleaded that applicant No.1is a legal entity and person interested. It is a public bodyinvolved in the welfare and development activities for thebenefit of the public at large. Therefore, delay may becondoned.7.Admittedly, the delay caused in preferring the appeals isenormous. The appellants had to complete the procedure forlegal opinion and the budget for expenses. It is a matter ofpromptitude in the services of the officers responsible. On theone hand, the applicants themselves pleaded that the interestof the public at large is to be protected and that theCorporation is working in the interest of the public at large,and on the other hand, they showed negligence in dischargingthe duties promptly. The welfare of the public at large shouldin no way be affected due to the negligence in performing theduties. Every mistake of the Officer not taking stepsimmediately within a period prescribed unnecessarily burdensthe State Exchequer and ultimately burdens the taxpayers. TheState is the biggest litigant. The State is well equipped withexperts and aware of the procedure of law simply because they 7 912-CA.1175-24 & ors.odthave legislated it. The Government experienced that theexecutives were not discharging their duties, which caused alot of chaos. Hence, the State of Maharashtra has to enact theMaharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers andPrevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005.The Government has declared the 'citizen charter' of thefacilities and services rendered by the offices and departmentsto the general public. This Act provides for departmentalinquiries against the errant officers. Many matters are simplypending under the garb of procedural compliances withoutjustifiable cause. One could understand that if the procedure isdone for the first time, the appellant/corporation is one of thebiggest litigants in the Court of law. Hence, it is assumed that itis well aware of the procedure of law and is a matter of routinefor them. Every time, the officers take shelter from theprocedural delay, but nowhere do they explain how the delay iscaused and who is responsible for causing the delay. All theofficers of the Corporation were expected to protect theinterest of the Corporation indirectly, which is the interest ofthe Government. Each Executive is bound to save theunnecessary expenses of interest. They are bound to ensurethat the Government is not burdened with debts and interest.Under the Land Acquisition Act, the highest rate of interest is 8 912-CA.1175-24 & ors.odtprovided. In many cases, as experienced, the Government paysinterest more than the principal amount. Unless thecompensation is paid, the running of interest does not stop, soit goes multiplying. 8.The question is who is responsible for the delay,obviously, the responsible and concerned officers.Unfortunately, we have no direct law to hold them personallyresponsible for such failures. They, being public servants, havesome protection, but the protection must be reasonable, andthat must be beyond the control of such officers. Moving thefiles from one table to another is obviously not beyond theofficers' control. It is nothing but negligence and carelessness.It is happening very regularly.9.In most cases, these officers take the shelter of the caseof Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. Mst. Katiji andothers ; (1987) 2 SCC 107. In the said case, it was clearlystated that sufficient cause for condonation of delay must bereasonable and should not be discriminated against theGovernment merely because they are not the private party. It iscommon knowledge that this Court has been making ajustifiably liberal approach in the matters institution in theSupreme Court. When substantial justice and technical 9 912-CA.1175-24 & ors.odtconsiderations are pitted against each other, the cause ofsubstantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other sidecannot claim to have a vested right in injustice being donebecause of a non-deliberate delay.10.The officer/authority may be excused where he is notnegligent. The 'culpable negligence' refers to the omission to dosomething that a reasonably careful person would do or thelack of usual ordinary caution in the performance of an actusually and ordinarily exercised by a person under similarcircumstances and conditions.11.Instead of taking a true message from thepronouncement in Collector Anantnag, it seems thegovernment officers have taken it for granted that they have acertificate. The deliberate delay was not taken liberally, and thedoctrine of sufficient cause mentioned in Section 5 of theLimitation Act was also not taken away.12.Noticing the great lethargy in the performance of theGovernment servants, the Maharashtra Government felt itnecessary to enact the Maharashtra Government ServantsRegulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge ofOfficial Duties Act, 2005, which is popularly known as the 10 912-CA.1175-24 & ors.odtDaptar Dirangai Act. The object of the State Government is toensure the citizens get timely services, and the Governmentservants should render services promptly. Enacting such Actswas a sign of omitting to discharge their duties andcarelessness. May the said Act cover limited subjects/servicesunder the 'Citizen Charter'. However, it is sufficient to assessthe Officer’s performance. Even then, there are noimprovements in the administration and promptitude.13.The applicant is a Government constituted Corporation.It is equipped with legal experts, officers and a large staff. It isan independent unit. They have huge funds for the project.They need not to go to the other departments. Every decisionwas to be taken within the Corporation. Since it is aGovernment corporation, it has no difficulties getting approvalquickly, at least in time. The question that always comes to thehead of the common person is why the administrators have nomoney, only for the poor agriculturists, who are legally entitledto receive compensation for their lands. They run pillar to postfor the compensation. They may not have money for theexecution of the awards. There is much to say aboutadministrative faults, but writing on it is futile becauseeveryone knows the truth. The Court is their last hope. Hence, 11 912-CA.1175-24 & ors.odtstringent actions are needed against the errant officers to bringdiscipline to the administration and protect the rights of thecitizens who have lost their property.14.In this case, the reason mentioned for the delay isobviously not beyond their control or reasonable. After theletter was written to the lawyer, they did not explain what theywere doing for four years. They were literally sitting over thefiles for four years. If they had been prompt, sanctions andapprovals would have been granted within a few days. 15.Another negligence noted in this case was that afterhanding over the money to the lawyer on the panel, none ofthe officers felt it necessary to inquire whether appeals werefiled. However, a vague pleading has been made in theapplications that they were under the impression that theappeals have been filed. It is not the job of the lawyer to givethe services to the litigant at his doorstep. The litigant has tocontact and in touch with the lawyer. In the facts andcircumstances, the lawyer could not be blamed. 16.After having gone through the reasons for the delay andhearing the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court is notsatisfied that the reasons for the delay were sufficient and 12 912-CA.1175-24 & ors.odtbeyond their control. It was the culpable negligence andcarelessness of the Officers. However, again, the Court has totake care of the Government Exchequer and protect theinterest of the Government. However, the errant officers couldnot be excused unconditionally. They must be saddled with thecost. For the above reasons, the following order is passed :O R D E R(i)Civil Applications for delay are allowed subject tocosts of Rs.500/- per month for the entire periodof delay.(ii)The costs be recovered from the salary/pension ofall the errant Officers proportionately to their payand be deposited with the Registrar (Judicial),Aurangabad, within eight (8) weeks from today,and then the Registrar (Judicial) shall inform thisCourt for its disbursement. If the cost is notdeposited as mentioned above, the delayapplications will be deemed rejected. (ii)The office should register the appeals afterdepositing the cost. (S. G. MEHARE, J.)...vmk/-