AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Salkar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the applicants and Mr. Padiyar for the respondent. By this application, the applicants seek condonation of delay of 1045 days in filing an appeal against Judgment and Award dated 29.9.2007, passed by the District Judge-2, South Goa, Margao enhancing the compensation in respect of the acquired land, from Rs. 20/- per sq. metre to Rs. 480/- per sq. metre.
On behalf of the applicants, affidavits of Shri Pundalik T. Parkar, Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Government of Goa and Shri Manish D. Salkar, Government Advocate, have been filed. Perusal of the said application and the affidavits discloses that an application for a certified copy of the Judgment and Award was made on 1st October, 2007 and the same was ready on 11.10.2001, but was delivered on 12.10.2007. The Government Advocate appearing for the Government sent his opinion, along with the certified copy, on 16th January, 2007. Thereafter, the Office of the Executive Engineer sent report to the Superintending Engineer on 12.11.2007 who, in turn, submitted the file to the Executive Engineer (Legal) on 16.11.2007. The same was returned, as it was incomplete. Thereafter, the file was sent to the Principal Chief Engineer for his consideration on 2.1.2008 and to the Law Department (Legal Affairs) by the Principal Chief Engineer on 4.1.2008. Thereafter, the file was moved before the Law Secretary, on 23.1.2008 and with his note, the file was forwarded to the Principal Chief Engineer for approval. The Principal Chief Engineer forwarded the file to the Minister (PWD) for approval, which was accorded on 29.2.2008. Thereafter, the file was again sent to the Law Department for taking appropriate steps. The Superintendent (Legal) forwarded the file to the Under Secretary (Legal) for forwarding it to the Office of Advocate General for allotment to Government Advocate for filing an appeal. Thereafter, the file was allotted to the Additional Government Advocate on 28.3.2008. The additional Government Advocate handed over the appeal memo to his junior for filing the same in the High Court. However, the junior Advocate, due to over sight, failed to file the said appeal. According to the learned Additional Government Advocate, he was under bonafide belief that the appeal was filed. On or about 18th November, 2010, the official who was dealing with the matter, came to inquire about the appeal. It was only thereafter that the Additional Government Advocate noticed that the appeal was not filed. Thereafter, the appeal was filed on 29.11.2010, along with the present application for condonation of delay.
Mr. Salkar, learned Additional Government Advocate, on behalf of the applicants, submitted that having regard to the factual background, this is a fit case in which the delay deserves to be condoned and the applicants have made out sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 1045 days.
On behalf the respondent, Mr. Padiyar, while opposing the application, has placed reliance upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in The State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Shri Vithu Kalya Govari and Others etc. etc., , and submitted that the directions given in the said Judgment, although were to the State of Maharashtra, the said directions are also binding on the State Government since the Judgment has been delivered by a Division Bench of this court. According to Mr. Padiyar, the applicants have not made out sufficient cause for condoning the delay which is quite substantial.
Perusal of the record discloses that there is absolutely no proper coordination between the Officers of P.W.D. and the Government Advocates who are supposed to file appeals on behalf of the State Government. However, the fact remains that vide the impugned Award the compensation has been enhanced from Rs. 20/- to Rs. 480/- per sq. metre and, as such, in the event, the delay is not condoned, the same would result in loss of substantial revenue of the State Government, without any adjudication on merits.
We are, therefore, inclined to condone the delay of 1045 days, subject to imposition of costs of Rs. 10,000/- in favour of the respondent. Initially, the costs shall be deposited in this Court by State of Goa, within a period of 4 weeks. Liberty to the respondent to withdraw the costs, after they are deposited. The State Government shall hold an inquiry as to the persons/officials responsible for the delay in filing the appeal and recover the costs from them. The inquiry shall be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary, Government of Goa and shall be conducted within a period of three months and the compliance report shall be filed within a period of four months.
Before parting, we would like to refer to the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra and ors., vs.Vithu Kalya Govari & Ors. (supra). In the said case, the Division Bench was considering applications for condonation of delay in filing appeals, preferred against the awards passed by the reference Court. The Division Bench gave the following directions to the State of Maharashtra :
(a) The State Government shall constitute a Committee presided over by the Chief Secretary of the State, which shall issue guidelines to ensure that appeals on behalf of the State in land acquisition matters are filed within the prescribed period of limitation.
(b). Under the directions/guidelines issued through appropriate Government Resolution, complete time frame should be provided for applying and/or receiving certified copies, preparation of appeals, sanctioning of requisite funds, drawing up and filing of appeals.
(c). These guidelines should also provide for due cooperation and co-ordination between different Departments of the State Government.
(d). Concerned authorities may also examine constituting a ''centralised nodal office'' to ensure timely filing of appeals in the High Court so as to avoid any consequences adverse to the interest of the State including burdening the public exchequer.
(e). The guidelines so framed shall also introduce the principle of public accountability and answerability for inaction/action of various authorities in the State hierarchy in such cases and for inordinate delay in filing the present cases, the State Government shall fix responsibility and take action in accordance with law.
Although, in the above case, the directions were given to the State of Maharashtra, we are of the considered opinion that it would be appropriate to direct also the State of Goa to follow the said directions. Accordingly, we direct the State of Goa to follow the guidelines referred to above. The application stands, accordingly, disposed of.