ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BAILHONGAL Vs. JYOTEPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS belated appeal has been filed by the Assistant commissioner, Bailhongal, representing the State of Karnataka under section 54 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The delay in filing the appeal is of 148 days. Now, an application has been filed for condonation of the said delay.

(2.) THE affidavit has been sworn by the Section Officer, Law department, (Lit-II), Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore, stating therein that the date of judgment and award passed by the learned Civil Judge, gokak was on 12. 6. 1995 and though certified copy of the judgment and award was received by the Additional Government Pleader well within the period of limitation and claimed to have been forwarded to the Law Department, under his letter dated 13. 7. 1995, the same is claimed to have been received by the department only on 29. 9. 1995 i. e. almost after a lapse of more than two months. Then, on 4. 10. 1995 it was given to the concerned case worker, who got intermingled the same with other files and lost track of the same, thus, taking a plea of misplacement of the file. Subsequently, the divisional Commissioner requested the department to look into the matter. The letter of the Divisional Commissioner was submitted to the deponent-Section Officer only on 26. 12. 1995. Then, he directed the concerned case worker to put up the fife before him, which was accordingly resubmitted along with some remarks on 28. 12. 1995. Then it was submitted to the Under Secretary on the very same day. The Under Secretary then returned the file with an order to trace the main file in the land acquisition case concerned. Thereafter, efforts were made to trace the same. On 3. 2. 1996, the Law Secretary, keeping in view the letter dated 30. 1. 1996 of the Divisional commissioner, directed to take steps for filing the appeal. Accordingly, written instructions were issued by the Under Secretary on 6. 2. 1996. Ultimately, the main file was traced by the concerned case worker sri H. Y. Bheemaraju on 7. 2. 1996 at 4. 45 p. m. Then it was made available to the Secretary. Finally, after movement of the file from table to table, the present appeal was filed on 20. 2. 1996.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the respondent, by referring to the said facts, has stated that the affidavit clearly discloses gross negligence on the part of government employees in not taking steps for filing the appeal in time and for such negligence the right accrued to a citizen should not be allowed to be defeated by exercise of judicial discretion by the Courts by condoning the delay, that too when even ex facie, the facts stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay does not constitute "sufficient cause" for being condoned.