STATE OF TRIPURA Vs. KOUSHIK ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the State Appellant-applicants for condoning a delay of 277 days in filing the appeal (L.A. Appeal No. 15 of 2011) against the judgment and award dated 12.1.2010 passed in Case No. Misc.(L.A.) 73 of 2005 by the learned Land Acquisition Judge (Court No. 3), West Tripura, Agartala wherein the learned L.A. Judge enhanced the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, West Tripura, Agartala for the acquired land from Rs. 60,000/- per kani to Rs. 8,00,000/- per kani for Bastu class of land, from Rs. 80,000/- per kani to Rs. 9,00,000/- per kani for Dokan/Nal class of land, from Rs. 55,000/- per kani to Rs. 7,00,000/- per kani for Nal class of land, from Rs. 40,000/- per kani to Rs. 4,00,000/- per kani for pukur, pukurpar, bhiti and charra class of land and from Rs. 30,000/- per kani to Rs. 3,00,000/- per kani for khelarmath, path, nala class of land.

(2.) This matter was partly heard on 29.3.2011 and it was directed to be listed today for further hearing. Accordingly, it is listed today and this Court has heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties.

(3.) Mr. N. Majumder, learned Counsel appearing for the State Appellant-applicants submitted that the delay caused is bona fide and not intentional as the Appellant-applicants are machinery impersonal and no individual is looking the interest of the Government properly though some of the employees/officers are entrusted with specific responsibilities, but those employees/officers try to shift their responsibility to other officers and in the instant case also due to non- action of the officers/employees concerned the aforesaid delay has occurred in filing the appeal. He further submitted that though in belated stage the requiring department, i.e. the Public Works Department took initiative in collecting necessary papers/documents from the LA Collector, West Tripura, Agartala and to place the same before the Law Department, Govt. of Tripura for obtaining their opinion whether an appeal can be filed or not, it took time as for receiving the necessary documents from the LA Collector, the requiring Department had to wait for some time, which prevented the Appellant-applicants from preferring the appeal within the statutory period of limitation. He submitted that the Apex Court in Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition, Kerala v. K.V. Ayisumma, 1996 AIR(SC) 2750 held that when the delay was occasioned at the behest of the Government, it would be very difficult to explain the day to day delay as the transaction of the business of the Government being done leisurely by officers who had not evinced or personal interest at different levels. No one takes personal responsibility in processing the matters expeditiously. As a fact at several stages, they take their own time to reach a decision. Even inspite of pointing at the delay, they do not take expeditious action for ultimate decision in filing the appeal. Learned Counsel again submitted that in State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and Ors., 1996 AIR(SC) 1623, the Apex Court also observed, inter alia, In litigations to which the Government is a party, there is yet another aspect which, perhaps, cannot be ignored. If appeals brought by Govt. are lost for such default, no person is individually affected; but what, in the ultimate analysis suffers is public interest. The decision of Govt. are collective and institutional decision and do not share the characteristics of decision of private individual. The law of limitation is, no doubt, the same for a private citizen as for Governmental authorities. Government, like any other litigant, must take responsibility for the acts or omissions of its officers. But a somewhat different complexion is imparted to the matter where Govt. makes out a case where public interest was shown to have suffered owing to acts of fraud or bad fate on the part of its officers or agents and where the officers were clearly at cross-purposes with it. It was, therefore, held that in assailing what constitutes sufficient cause for purpose of Section 5, it might, perhaps, be somewhat unrealistic to exclude from consideration that go into the judicial verdict. These factors which are peculiar to and characteristics of the functioning of the Government. Govt. decisions are proverbially slow encumbered as they are, by a considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process of their making. A certain amount of latitude is therefore, not impermissible. It is right said that those who bears responsibility of Govt. must have a little play at the joints. Due recognition of this limitation on Governmental functioning of course, within reasonable limit - is necessary if the judicial approach is not to be rendered unrealistic. It would, perhaps, be unfair and unrealistic to put Govt. and private parties on the same footing in all respects in such matters. Implicit in the very nature of Governmental functioning is procedural delay incidental decision making process. The delay of over one year was accordingly condoned.