DEPUTY COLLECTOR VISNAGAR Vs. BRAHMAN NATVARBHAI MANILAL MOHANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the Civil Applications, prayer has been made for condonation of delay of 74 days which has been caused in filing of the Civil Appeal before this Court under Sec. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the judgment and award of the 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, Mahesana, in Land Acquisition Cases, main L.A.R. No. 905 of 1993, dated 28-2-1997.

(2.) From the statement which has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant, I find that out of these 33 appeals, only in Civil Appeal No. 3725 of 1997, 3734 of 1997 and 3735 of 1997, the amount of additional compensation awarded is more than Rs. 15,000.00 and in rest of the appeals this amount is less than Rs. 15.000.00 and as such, the rest of the Civil Appeals are covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Shantaben, Widow of Chhitubhai and Ors., in Civil Application No. 7876 of 1997 and allied matters, decided on 10-9-1997. In view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the aforesaid case, no useful purpose will be served in condoning the delay in filing of these Civil Appeals. However, as in three appeals the amount of additional compensation is more than Rs. 15,000.00, it is necessary for this Court to consider these Civil Applications and appeals on merits also.

(3.) The Award has been made by the Reference Court in this case on 28-2-1997 and for certified copy of the said award, an application has been submitted on 6-3-1997 which was received on 25-4-1997 and the last day for filing of the appeal was 15/07/1997. This appeal has been filed before this Court on 30/09/1997. A copy of the judgment was sent by the District Government Pleader, Mahesana, to the Legal Department which was received at Gandhinagar on 5-5-1997 and on the very day, papers were sent to the Narmada and Water .Resources Department, but curiously, this Department has sat over the matter for more than four months. The papers were received by the Legal Department from the Narmada & Water Resources Department on 17-9-1997 and on 19-9-1997, letter has been despatched to the Government Advocate here to file appeal. The Government Advocate has also not taken considerable long time to file appeal. There is no explanation worth the name what to say of any sufficient cause by which the Government can be said to have been prevented from filing the appeal for the period from 5/05/1997 to 15/09/1997. If we go by the last date of limitation, then too the Narmada and Water Resources Department has taken complete two months to clear the file. From the facts stated in this application, it is clearly borne out that it is a clear case of negligence and carelessness on the part of the concerned officers of the Narmada and Water Resources Department to deal with such an important matter where appeal has to be filed within limitation. I do not find any ground, much less, sufficient ground in this case by which the State Government can be said to have been prevented from filing the appeal within limitation in this Court.