SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION Vs. BAIDHAR BHUTIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1. There is delay of 121 days in filing the appeal. In the petition for condonation of delay, it has been stated that the impugned judgment dated 8.1.1997 was received by the appellant on 3.3.1997 from the trial Court. This may not be strictly correct, as it appears from the copy of the judgment filed in this Court that the certified copy was obtained on 24.2.1997. Be that as it may, the appellant has to explain the delay which occurred after the expiry of the date of limitation and it may not be necessary for the appellant to indicate as to what happened prior to the expiry of limitation. In this case, keeping in view the copy period available, 14th, April, 1997, was the last day for filing the appeal. It is stated by the appellant that after receipt of the papers, the connected file was sent to the office of the Advocate General, Orissa, for necessary opinion and a letter was issued by the appellant on 26.4.1997. In other words, the letter seeking opinion for filing appeal was issued after the expiry of the period of limitation. It is further stated that the letter was received in the office of the Advocate General on 2.5.1997 and file was placed before the learned Advocate General on 9.5.1997 who again placed the matter before another counsel of the State to give opinion in the matter. It is further stated that such opinion was given on 3.6.1997. The file was again placed before the Advocate General on 23.6.1997. When the matter was already barred by time, it is reasonable to expect that more urgency would have been shown in the matter. It is further stated in the petition that the Government of Orissa vide letter dated 15.7.1997 intimated the office of the Advocate General to file appeal before the High Court and the said letter was received on 22.7.1 997. Thereafter the file was placed before the typing section for typing out the trial Court judgment and thereafter the file was placed before the counsel for the State for preparation of grounds of appeal on 6.8.1997. The appeal was thereafter filed on 13.8.1997.

(2.) FROM the petition it appears that except stating some dates on which some action was allegedly taken, nothing has been stated about the other periods during which there was complete inaction and at every stage there seems to be negligence and leaches on the part of the State Government. The learned counsel for the appellant relying upon the decisions reported in AIR 1987 Supreme Court, 1353 (Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. v. Mst. Katiji and others) ; AIR 1988 Supreme Court, 897 (G. Ramegowda, Major etc. v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore) and AIR 1996 Supreme Court, 1984 (State of Madhya Pradesh v. S.S. Akolkar), has submitted that the question relating to condonation of delay should be liberally considered particularly when the State is the appellant. There is no doubt that the question of condonation of delay should be liberally considered by the Courts for the cause of substantial justice, but that does not mean that when no plausible explanation has been given for long period, the so -called liberal attitude should be taken in all cases where State Government is appellant, as observed by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 1988 Supreme Court, 2276 (P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala and another), in the following words :

(3.) SINCE limitation petition is rejected, the First Appeal stands dismissed. Urgent certified copy of the order may be given on proper application.