The Special Deputy Collector, L.A. vs K. Laxma Reddy and Others

Motilal B. Naik, J.—This is an application filed u/s 151 CPC seeking to condone the delay of 2108 days in re-presenting the above appeal.

Petitioner in this C.M.P. No. 11954 of 1995 is the Special Deputy Collector, L.A., Unit-V, S.R.S.P., Karimnagar. The Land Acquisition Officer initiated land acquisition proceedings for the purpose of excavating the Sriramsagar Project canal by issuing 4(1) Notification under Land Acquisition Act on 8-8-1985. The land owners though claimed that the lands are fertile, they were raising commercial crops like Maiza, Chillies, green-gram and ground-nuts and were getting Rs. 2,000/- net income per acre and they claimed the value could be between Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per acre, however, the Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation at Rs. 4,500/- per acre.

As against the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the land owners sought reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the appropriate Civil Court and was adjudicated by the Subordinate Judge, Karimnagar in O.P. No. 263 of 1985 and disposed of by an order dated 5-5-1989 enhancing the compensation from Rs. 4,500/- to Rs. 7,500/- per acre apart from granting other benefits in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

As against the decree in O.P. No. 263/85, dated 5-5-89, the Land Acquisition Officer, i.e., the Special Deputy Collector, who is the petitioner herein has preferred an appeal before this Court on various grounds. It is seen from the records available before this Court that the appeal was presented to the Registry of this Court on behalf of the Special Deputy Collector, L.A., Unit-V, S.R.S.P., Karimnagar through the Government Pleader of High Court on 25-9-1989. The Registry raised objections and returned the said appeal bundle to the Government Pleader''s Office for re-submitting the appeal within a specified time. The appeal was returned on 23-10-1989. The objections raised are as under:

(1) full and complete grounds of appeal should be filed;

(2) complete cause-title should be furnished;

(3) Bata should be paid;

(4) Typed copies of judgment, decree, duplicate grounds copies;

(5) Notice forms, covers, dockets, acknowledgment forms should be filed along with the appeal grounds.

As seen from the objections raised by the Registry, the Land Acquisition Officer while filing the appeal, failed to furnish the above details along with the appeal which are relevant for the purpose of taking on record and placing before the Court for admission and further appropriate orders. However, the objections as pointed out by the Registry on 23-10-1989 were complied only on 11-8-1995 by the appellant and the appeal was re-submitted on 11-8-1995 which fact is evident from the entries made on the appeal by the Registry. Thus, there is a delay of 2108 days in complying with the objections raised by the Registry while re-presenting the appeal in the Registry.

The appellant, however, has filed the present application u/s 151 of C.P.C. seeking to condone the delay of 2108 days in re-presenting the appeal. The affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation petition is by one Sir M.V. Krishna Rao, Special Deputy Collector, L.A. Unit-V, S.R.S.P., Karimnagar. In the affidavit, it is averred thus:

"I submit that the above appeal was filed before this Hon''ble Court against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Karimnagar dated 5-5-1989 passed in O.P. No. 263 of 1985. The said appeal was returned by the Registry of the Hon''ble High Court, for complying with certain office objections on 23-10-1989. Thereupon, the Special Officer, Govt. Pleaders'' Office through their letter dated 22-9-1989 has required this office to send the material papers, which was received by this office on 24-9-1989. As desired by them, the material papers were sent to the Special Officer, G.Ps. Office, through this office letter dated 28-12-1994 and the same were received by them on 5-1-1995. The appeal returned with objections was complied on 8-8-1995. Thus, there was a delay of 2108 days in re-presenting the above Appeal which is neither wilful nor negligent, but due to the circumstances stated above."

The Limitation Act, 1963 is a piece of legislation brought out by the Parliament in the 14th year of the Republic of India which is an Act to consolidate and amend the law for limitation of these and other proceedings and for other purposes connected therewith. If the aggrieved party intends to challenge the order, a stipulated period is provided for such challenge. If the challenge is beyond the stipulated period, such challenge would be fatal and would be considered as beyond the limitation contemplated in this regard. However, Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides for extension of prescribed period in certain cases. The Court before which an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act is filed along with the appeal, in the opinion of the Court, the appellant has shown sufficient cause for not preferring an appeal or making the application within such period, such delay could be condoned if satisfying reasons are furnished.

In this case, though the appeal appears to have been filed in time, the appellant has not furnished the full and complete grounds of appeal and has also failed to furnish complete cause-title, batas were not paid, typed copies of the judgment were not filed along with the grounds of appeal, notice forms, covers and other requirements were not attached along with the grounds of appeal. The appeal was presented before the Registry though with incomplete information, just to make it appear as if the appeal has been presented within time. Had the appellant presented the appeal on 11-8-1995, the date on which the objections were complied with and re-presented the appeal before the Registry, it would have necessitated the appellant herein to file an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act along with the appeal. In such application, the appellant has to explain the day-to-day delay, which is more than2108 days, for filing the appeal.

In this case, what looks to me is that a particular device is invented by the appellant only to overcome the shutters that would be placed against him under the Limitation Act. For all purposes, the appeal is treated as if it is filed in time, though in reality, all grounds are not properly stated and other requirements are not complied with. Only a sheet of paper is filed before the Registry without furnishing other material, to get over the limitation contemplated in this behalf, challenging the order in O.P. No. 263/85, dated 5-5-1989.

As discussed above, when an application u/s 5 of the Limitation act is filed seeking condonation of delay, the party is required to explain the day-to-day delay. In this case, though the appeal tentatively looks to have been presented in time on 23-9-1989 against the order dated 5-5-89, after deducting the period that has taken for obtaining the certified copies from the Court below, for all the purposes, I take it that the appeal appears to have been filed in time as the Registry has not raised any objections on this aspect. The time spent on getting the certified copies has been calculated by the Registry and the Registry noted that the appeal is in time.

The present application though, is not u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, but is filed u/s 151 of the C.P.C. seeking to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under the said section. No doubt, it is true that Courts have inherent powers u/s 151 of CPC, apart from the powers under other provisions of the Act, this power has to be exercised to do real and substantive justice. Where express provision against all inconvenience is not provided for, it becomes the duty of the Judge to make such order as may be necessary for the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. This power is not vested in the Court, but it is a power inherent in the Court by virtue of its duty to do justice between the parties before it. Therefore, the necessary implication is to take care that the act of the Court does no injury to any of the suitors.

The appellant herein, who is the petitioner in the application, is Special Deputy Collector, L.A., Unit-V, S.R.S.P., Karimnagar. In the affidavit filed in support of the application filed u/s 151 of the C.P.C. seeking to condone the delay of 2108 days in re-presenting the appeal, it is stated that the the Special Officer, Government Pleaders'' Office through letter dated 22-9-1989 has informed the Special Deputy Collector, L.A., Unit-V, S.R.S.P. Karimnagar to send the required information which would enable the Govenrment Pleader to re-present the appeal within the time given by the Registry to the appellant. This letter from the Special Officer, Government Pleaders'' Office, High Court has been, admittedly, received by the appellant herein on 24-9-1989. From 24-9-1989, the Special Deputy Collector, L.A. Unit-V, S.R.S.P., Karimnagar has taken more than five years for furnishing other particulars indicated in the letter addressed by the Government Pleaders Office. In response to the said letter, the Spl. Deputy Collector, L. A., Unit-V, S.R.S.P., Karimnagar furnishes the relevant particulars only on 28-12-1994 which was received by the Government Pleaders Office on 5-1-1995. The Government Pleaders'' Office, thereafter, has re- presented the appeal after complying with the objections on 11-8-1995. Thus, in this process, more than six years time has been consumed for re-presenting the appeal which was presented by the appellant at the first instance, way back on 25-9-1989.

State acquires lands from the citizens for various purposes. Certain powers are delegated to certain authorities in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act through which some Officers are authorised to complete land acquisition proceedings including that of issuing necessary notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and also passing of awards in this behalf. In the case on hand, the lands are acquired for the purpose of excavating the canals of Sriramsagar Project. Necessary notifications were issued way back on 8-8-1985. Though the land owners claimed Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation per acre, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded only Rs. 4,5Q0/- per acre, as against a reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was made by the Land Acquisition Officer at the behest of the land owners the Land Acquisition Officer being the Special Deputy Collector, L.A., Unit-V, S.R.S.P., Karimnagar in this case. The Government has created the post of Special Deputy Collector for the purpose of manning the entire land acquisition proceedings pertaining to Sriramsagar Project. Sufficient staff is also provided under the control of the Special Deputy Collector, Sriramsagar Project. No doubt, it is true that the Special Deputy Collector alone cannot attend to all the incidental works connected with the land acquisition proceedings, but, however, the Special Deputy Collector has over-all supervisory powers on the staff working under him. By necessary implication, he will be held responsible for any lapses.

The Civil servants under service conditions are responsible in their acts to their master, master being the State Government. The State Government, in turn, in a democratic set up, is answerable to the people. The salaries of the Government servants are paid from the public exchequer. Therefore, they owe a responsibility to the public also. Public reposes confidence in the civil servants who are to implement the various schemes meant for the common cause of the society through the Government agencies.

In this case, the Civil Court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 4,500/- as against the award of the Land Acquisition Officer to Rs. 7,500/- per acre while disposing of O.P. No. 263/85 on 5-5-89. Though the appeal filed by the Special Deputy Collector, L.A., Unit-V, S.R.S.P., Karimnagar against the order of the Civil Court in O.P. No. 263/85 dated 5-5-89 seems to have been filed in time on 25-9-1989, but the Registry had raised/ certain objections for compliance and as such, the appeal was returned on 23-10-1989. As seen from the discussion, the Government Pleaders'' Office had intimated the Special Deputy Collector, L. A., Unit-V, Karimnagar by letter dated 22-9-1989 requiring the Special Deputy Collector to furnish other information, which was received by the Special Deputy Collector, L. A., Unit-V, S.R.S.P., Karimnagar on 24-9-1989. The office of the Special Deputy Collector, L.A., Unit-V, S.R.S.P., Karimnagar reacted to the letter dated 22-9-1989 sent from the office of the Government Pleader, High Court of A.P. and furnished all information as required through a letter only on 28-12-1994 which was received by the Government Pleaders'' Office on 5-1-1995. From this, it is seen that there was more than five years delay in sending the necessary details so as to get the appeal numbered in the Registry after compliance.

It is common experience of this Court that parties file appeals before the Court without furnishing full details, so as to make it appear as if the appeal has been filed in time. For the objections raised by the Registry of this Court, two weeks or three weeks time is given for complying with such objections. Parties also seek extension of such time before the Registry which will also be granted.

Once a party seeks to challenge the order in appeal before this Court or any other Courts, every such challenge is governed by the law of limitation. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is however provided for meeting a contingency where delay has necessitated and such delay is sought to be condoned on satisfying reasons. It is not the case that application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed, but an application u/s 151 of the CPC is filed seeking to condone the delay in re-presenting the appeal which was returned to the party for compliance of certain objections. When Courts are rejecting the delays of even 50 days and 100 days if sufficient reasons are not shown by the party, the petitioner herein i.e., the Special Deputy Collector, L. A., Unit-V, S.R.S.P., Karimnagar seeking condonation of delay of 2108 days by invoking inherent powers of this Court u/s 151 of the CPC, in my view, is an attempt to nullify the provisions contemplated under the Limitation Act. In other words, the effort of the Land Acquisition Officer i.e., the Special Deputy Collector, L. A., Unit-V, S.R.S.P., Karimnagar is to make the Limitation Act redundant. As I said earlier, a duty is cast on the Judge to make such order as may be necessary for the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of process of this Court. In this case, I am inclined to hold that the attempt of the petitioner i.e., Spl. Dy. Collector, L.A., Unit-V, S.R.S.P., Karimnagar seeking to condone the abnormal delay of 2108 days is a step in the direction of abusing the process of the Court. If such a delay is to be condoned, it would amount to causing irreparable injury to the other suitors. A reading of the affidavit filed in support of the delay-condonation petition fails to disclose any pragmatic reasons for such delay and therefore, I am not inclined to concede to the request made in this behalf, and this petition is liable to be dismissed.

The next question that would fall for consideration is whether the Court is to satisfy itself only by dismissing this application or this Court in the circumstances, could issue necessary directions to the concerned, for taking appropriate action against the Special Deputy Collector, L.A., Unit-V, S.R.S.P., Karimnagar and his staff who are responsible for the abnormal delay of more than six years in re-presenting the appeal which was returned by the Registry of this Court way back on 23-10-1989? Looking at the background of the case where public interest is involved, I am inclined to exercise inherent power available to this Court u/s 151 of the CPC, though not for supporting the cause of Spl. Dy. Collector, L.A., Unit-V, S.R.S.P., Karimnagar, but in support of public cause.

I have held in the foregoing paras that Civil Servants are responsible for their acts to the Master in particular, Master being the Government and to the public in general as their salaries are being paid from the public exchequer. When public interest is involved, could this callous attitude shown by the officials concerned be exonerated by this Court ignoring the public interest involved in this matter? It may be true that financial implications are not of higher magnitude in this case. But there are batches and batches of land acquisition cases pertaining to Sriramsagar Project, pending in this Court. In all the cases, delays are quite abnormal, as a result of which Courts are inclined to dismiss the appeals on the grounds of laches alone. As is said "little drops of water make a mighty ocean", financial constraints on one aspect may be insignificant, but such constraints assume significance when such constraints are from several sources. Government has many duties to perform. It has to mobilise resources to meet the growing demands and on the other hand, has to plug the loop-holes. There shall be a combined effort from all concerned to see that the scarce resources at the disposal of the Government are properly utilised.

This Court has experience as to how the appeals filed by the Government, particularly, appeals arising out of Land Acquisition matters are managed by the officials concerned. These matters are not presented in time in Courts, but also no proper evidence is let in by the Land Acquisition Officers before the Civil Courts where the matters are referred u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Many times, despite these draw-backs, Courts do consider the constraints in the Government litigation as the Government machinery is not as alert as a private citizen and do show some concessions wherever there is some delay. But this concession cannot be taken as if the official act will be condoned by the Courts whatever may be the magnitude of indifference.

In this case, the delay is so abnormal, it would be improper if such abnormal delay is to be ignored by this Court. This Court is aware of the fact that despite the best efforts, all the material needed to be filed along with the appeal may not be available at the time of presenting the appeal. The objection raised in this behalf could be complied with, within a reasonable period, say, within one month, two months or three months, if it is the case of private parties. In the case of the Government, the grace period could be extended upto five to six months but cannot be for an indefinite period.

But then who could be held responsible for the present situation? This Court is informed by the learned Government Pleader that the Commissioner, Land Revenue, Government of Andhra Pradesh is the over-all in-charge for the land acquisition matters. It is desired that the Commissioner, Land Revenue Government of Andhra Pradesh issues necessary instructions to all concerned for taking prompt action in such cases wherever it is felt that the order of the Courts are to be challenged in the appellate forum provided for. It is further directed that the Commissioner, Land Revenue, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad to hold an enquiry in this matter and ascertain as to who are responsible for this sorry state of affairs. After holding the enquiry, the Commissioner, Land Revenue, Government of Andhra Pradesh, shall, thereupon, initiate appropriate action against such of those found guilty, including that of removal from service while following necessary procedure of principles of natural justice. In all probability, the endeavour of the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Government of Andhra Pradesh shall be to hold an enquiry in this behalf and complete the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This direction is one, in the effort to alerting the officials who are connected with the land acquisition matters where huge financial implications are involved.

Having regard to the above discussion, I do not find any merits in this C.M.P. and the same is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances with costs of Rs. 5,000/-. In my view, this amount of Rs. 5,000/- has to be recovered from the salary of Sri M.V. Krishna Rao, Special Deputy Collector, L.A., Unit-V, S.R.S.P., Karimnagar, at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month, for five months commencing from 1-11-1995. The Drawing Officer of the unit of the Special Deputy Collector, L.A., Unit-V, S.R.S.P., Karimnagar is directed to'' deduct Rs. 1,000/- per month for five months from out of the salary of Sri M.V. Krishna Rao, Special Deputy Collector, L.A., Unit-V, S.R.S.P., Karimnagar. The amount so deducted shall be remitted to the Chief Minister''s Relief Fund and necessary receipts shall be obtained. Compliance in this regard shall be intimated to the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, every month by the Drawing Officer of Unit-V, S.R.S.P., Karimnagar.

Office is directed to dispatch copies of this order to the Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Commissioner of Land Revenue, Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Drawing Officer, L.A., Unit-V, S.R.S.P., Karimnagar, immediately for compliance of the above directions.

Before parting with this case, I must say that there is total lack of accountability in the acts of the officials connected with the Land acquisition matters. It is high time, some specific provisions are contemplated in the service conditions so that the employees could be made responsible for their lapses while discharging their duties, otherwise, the situation may end up in anarchy.