JUDGMENT
G. Yethirajulu, J.
1. These petitions viz., CMP No. 13903 of 2002 in A.S. (SR) No. 35071 of 2002, CMP No. 13907 of 2002 in AS (SR) No.35238 of 2002, CMP No. 13908 of 2002 in AS (SR) No.35063 of 2002, CMP No. 14487 of 2002 in AS (SR) No. 35016 of 2002, CMP No. 15370 of 2002 in AS (SR) No.35067 of 2002 are filed by the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Somasila Project, Unit-IV, Rajampet, Cuddapah District seeking to condone the delay of 694, 715, 694, 584 and 707 days respectively in preferring the appeals against the orders and decrees of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet in LA OP Nos.39, 48, 42, 141, and 50 of 1999 respectively dated 9-2-2000 enhancing the compensation awarded by the State.
2. Since all the appeals arise out of the same acquisition, these petitions for condonation of delay in filing the appeals are clubbed and this common order is passed.
3. The brief facts of the cases leading to the filing of these appeals, as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petitions, are that a village by name Gollapalli, hamlet of Malinenipatnam, Atloor Mandal, Cuddapah District was acquired for four shore submersion under the Somasila Project. The Land Acquisition Officer passed Award No.4/95-96 dated 2-3-1996 fixing the market value prevailing at the relevant date towards compensation. Aggrieved by the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer the respondents sought for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and accordingly the matter was referred to the Sub-Court, Rajampet. The said Court passed the impugned orders enhancing the compensation by 80% on the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer for the structures said to be submerged in the four shore of Somasila Project. This appeal has been preferred challenging the orders passed by the lower Court.
4. It is stated in the affidavit that the Assistant Government Pleader, Rajampet filed the copy application for the certified copy of the order on 17-5-2000 and a copy was made ready on 9-6-2000. The Government Pleader forwarded the copy of the order and decree to the office of the appellant on 17-6-2000 and due to lack of funds the appeals could not be filed immediately. On 5-9-2000 the proposal for filing the appeals was prepared and sent to the Deputy Administrator, Government Pleader’s Office, High Court of Andhra Pradesh and a letter was addressed by the Deputy Administrator on 8-9-2000 to the appellant for providing relevant material papers and funds. The necessary amount was paid on 30-10-2000 and the concerned officer representing the appellant was transferred and he was busy in drought relief operations, Janmabhoomi programme, Neeru Meeru and other programmes and he was also busy in taking necessary measures due to heavy rains on account of cyclone effect in Cuddapah District. He prepared an affidavit in September 2000, but he was transferred without submitting the same to the Hon’ble High Court. Due to frequent changes of Special Deputy Collectors and lack of regular Special Deputy Collectors, the appeals could not be filed within time. He requested to condone the delay in filing these appeals on the ground it is neither willful nor intentional, but the delay caused is purely on administrative grounds,
5. The petitioner-appellant also filed additional affidavits of Sri V. Jagannadha Rao, Deputy Secretary to Government, I&CAD (PW) Department, A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad as better affidavits. In the additional affidavits he mentioned about several matters arising out of the same notification of Somasila Project. He mentioned that though the decisions of the civil Court were rendered in the years 1998 to 2000, the persons-in-charge of those matters failed to take proper steps to file the appeals in time, though huge monies were involved. These delays came to light at supervisory level of the Government recently. A prima facie examination of the circumstances revealed that there has been an organised effort from certain quarters to sabotage the preferring of appeals by the State. Certain agencies with the aid of dishonest officials successfully endeavoured to delay the filing of appeals and re-presentation of appeals after complying the objections and sought to ensure that no appeals are filed in many cases. This has resulted in colossal damage to the finances of the State. It came to the notice of the Government that thousands of appeals relating to Somasila Project have not been filed. A decision was taken by the Government to conduct an enquiry into the whole affair and to identify the culprits for necessary action. The Government in G.O. Ms. No. 114, dated 26-8-2002 issued orders appointing Sri V. Manohar Prasad, IAS to enquire into the matter and to identify the persons responsible for causing the delay in filing the appeals. It is further mentioned that these are cases where there is ample reason to suspect fraudulent conduct and it came to light only a month ago. Since the lower Court awarded exorbitant compensation it would cause irreparable injury to public interest and the State would be compelled to pay hundreds of crores of rupees. He further mentioned about the correspondence regarding the sanction of amounts for obtaining certified copies, for meeting expenses for filing appeals etc. He submits that these appeals are against some of the above batch of cases and the Government has to prefer appeals in 3,318 cases. It is further mentioned in the affidavit that the delay was also occurred due to administrative procedural difficulties since huge amounts were required for filing the appeals. He therefore requested to condone the delay in filing the appeals keeping in view the magnitude of the problem, the remedial measures suggested by the learned Advocate-General for avoiding the delays and due to failure of proper monitoring of all types of land acquisition cases in different Courts.
6. Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the respondents opposed the applications on the ground that the appellant failed to give sufficient reasons for causing the delay, therefore requested to dismiss the petitions with costs.
7. The point for consideration is whether the delay in filing the appeals can be condoned?
Point :
8. Sri T. Anantha Babu the learned Advocate-General representing the State submitted that the respondents and several others had undue benefit of exorbitant compensation for the structures raised subsequent to the date of notification for acquisition and the Acquisition Officer was also liberal for the reasons best known to him. He further submitted that the lower Court ought not have passed the impugned order enhancing the compensation, having observed that the evidence of the private engineer who prepared the estimates for the value of structures does not inspire any confidence. Hence the Government decided to file appeals way back in September, 2000 and made all arrangements to file appeals. But some how these appeals were not filed in the Court. Very recently the Government came to know that these appeals were not filed as a result of collusion between the claimants and the officers of the Government involved in these cases at various stages. Keeping in view the fraud played by the officers in these matters and the magnitude of the issue involved, a liberal view in the matter has to be taken without standing on pure technicalities and condone the delay in preferring the appeals. If any other view is taken in the matter the State has to shell down crores of rupees as compensation for the structures on the lands submerged under the project resulting in colossal loss of public monies.
9. The respondents’ Counsel while resisting the submissions made by the learned Advocate-General brought to our notice a Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of A.P. and Anr. v. Sayanna and Anr., , to impress upon us that unless cogent and convincing reasons are given in the affidavit for condoning the delay it can be treated as a case of gross negligence and inaction on the part of the State Government wherein the State cannot claim any latitude for condonation of delay.
10. In the case covered by the above decision there was a dispute between a private party and the State Government and the suit was decreed and confirmed by the appellate Court for the relief of declaration and possession of the private party against the Government in respect of landed property. In the said decision the State preferred the second appeal after a delay of 10 years pleading administrative delays. The Division Bench while rejecting the same, at paragraph 20 of the judgment, observed thus:
The State just as a private party is not relieved of the obligation to satisfy the Court of the existence of ‘sufficient cause’ in preferring the appeal belatedly. The expression ‘sufficient cause’ being a word sufficiently elastic and flexible, the approaches of the Court while considering the question of sufficiency of the cause shown could differ, depending upon the accepted position in which the litigant is placed. When the State or its agent is the applicant, the concept of ‘sufficient cause’ should be viewed, having due regard to the practical realities of Governmental functioning and peculiar handicaps afflicting the system. Strict insistence on the traditional principle of explaining every day’s delay is not warranted. A wider latitude in the matter of exercise of discretion to condone the delay keeping in view the said peculiar features is therefore called for, otherwise, if those peculiar characteristics and the Court proceeds to apply the same yardstick, it would amount to adopting a pedantic or mechanical approach and that would lead to miscarriage of justice. It would then be a case of not adopting the classification where there is a need for one -a facet of Article 14. Uniformity in approach in dissimilar situations would amount to application of law in an uneven manner. The spirit and philosophy underlying Section 5 of the Limitation Act would then be defeated. The public interest may irretrievably suffer. The Court has to properly balance the considerations of public interest on the one hand and public policy that lies at the root of the law of limitation on the other. But, there is a limit to which the Court can go. It must be remembered that the difference in approach does not mean that any explanation given by the official of the State should be glibly swallowed and the Court should stretch a point to bring the explanation within the ambit of ‘sufficient cause’ at any cost. The factors and causes contributing to the delay should bear reasonable nexus to the concept of ‘sufficient cause’ and should pass the test of reasonableness and genuineness. Where the delay is too long just as in the present case, cogent and convincing reasons are expected from the petitioner-State, because the burden to satisfactorily explain the delay would then be heavier. The Governmental authorities cannot shrug off the responsibility by merely pleading endless and long winding correspondence and office notes. There must be some end to the correspondence and interaction and decision making. The process cannot go on as in the instant case for ten years unless of course, there is a reasonable ground to believe that there was fraud or collusion on the part of Government Officials and the private party.
11. The learned Counsel for the respondents while relying on the above decision submitted that since the appellant failed to show sufficient cause for the condonation of delay, the State Government cannot be given a different treatment by giving so much latitude without treating it on par with a private party.
12. The principle laid down by the Division Bench indicates that the Government authorities cannot shrug of the responsibility by merely pleading endless and long winding correspondence and office notes. But, at the same time, the Division Bench observed that if there is a reasonable ground to believe that there was fraud or collusion on the part of Government Official and the private party, the delay can be condoned.
13. In the cases on hand, the learned Advocate-General submitted that the delay in preferring the appeals was intentionally caused by some officials in collusion with certain agencies and played fraud on the Government to avoid filing of the appeals. With due regard to the principle laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, we observe that the principle laid down in the above decision is not coming in our way to condone the delay ranging from 500 to 700 days in preferring the appeals on account of the fraud on the part of the officials in collusion with certain agencies, as pleaded by the Government.
14. The learned Advocate-General has brought to our notice certain decisions of the Apex Court and this High Court on the aspect relating to condonation of delay caused by the Government in preferring the appeals.
15. In G. Rame Gowda and Ors. v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, , the Supreme Court while dealing with the delay caused in preferring appeals in land acquisition matters held as follows:
If there is negligence, deliberate or gross inaction or lack of bona fides on the part of the party or its Counsel there is no reason why the opposite side should be exposed to a time-barred appeal. Each case will have to be considered on the particularities of its own special facts. However, the expression ‘sufficient cause’ in Section 5 must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of the delay. (Para 7)
In litigations to which Govt. is a party there is same aspect, which, perhaps, cannot be ignored, if appeals brought by Government are lost for such defaults, no person is individually affected; but what, in the ultimate analysis, suffers is public interest. The decisions of Govt. are collective and institutional decisions and do not share the characteristics of decisions of private individuals. … 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 and omissions of its officers. But a somewhat different complexion is imparted to the matter where Government makes out a case where public interest was shown to have suffered owing to acts of fraud or bad faith on the part of its officers or agents and where the officers were clearly at cross-purposes with it. Therefore, in assessing what, in a particular case, constitutes ‘sufficient cause’ for purposes of Section 5 it might, perhaps, be somewhat unrealistic to exclude from the considerations that go into the judicial verdict, these factors, which are peculiar to, and characteristic of the functioning of the Government. Governmental 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. (Para 8)
16. In State of J&K v. Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta and Ors., 1996 (1) Supreme 560, the Supreme Court while dealing with an appeal regarding condonation of delay before the High Court held as follows:
The Court would take judicial notice that no one in the Government would take responsibility for the delay and in the process of leisurely consultations between different departments or at different levels in the same department the limitation to file the appeal gets barred. Refusal to condone the delay feeds public injustice and a premium for lethargy and encourages mischief. Applying the pragmatic approach, the explanation for the delay needs to be considered and the cause of justice advanced and consideration angulated and accordingly, considered from that perspective the delay gets condoned.
17. In State of Haryana v. Chandramani and Ors., , the Supreme Court while dealing with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act held as follows:
When the State is an applicant, praying for condonation of delay, it is common knowledge that on account of impersonal machinery and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note-making, file-pushing, and passing-on-the-buck ethos, delay on the part of the State is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve, but the State represents collective cause of the community. It is axiomatic that decisions are taken by officers/ agencies proverbially at slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table and keeping it on table for considerable time causing delay intentional or otherwise is a routine. Considerable delay of procedural red tape in the process of their making decision is a common feature. Therefore, certain amount of latitude is not impermissible. If the appeals brought by the State are lost for such default no person is individually affected but what in the ultimate analysis suffers, is public interest. The expression “sufficient cause” should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice-oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day’s delay. The factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the Governmental conditions would be cognizant to and requires adoption of pragmatic approach in justice-oriented process. The Court should decide the matters on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit.
18. In Government of A.P. v. V. Sattaiah and Ors., , a Division Bench of this High Court while dealing with an appeal preferred against rejection of an application for condonation of delay to a land acquisition matter observed as follows:
While the State cannot be treated differently from any other litigant, the Court is “bound” to take into consideration the following factors-(i) red-tapism in Government, (ii) delays in correspondence, (iii) habitual indifference of Governmental officials or Government Pleaders as distinct from the usual diligence of ordinary litigants or lawyers for private parties; (iv) collusion or negligence by Government officials or Government pleaders or fraud, (v) damage to public interest or to public funds or interests of the State, (vi) institutional or bureaucratic procedures as well as delays arising thereon, and (vii) need to render substantial justice on merits. It is not as if fraud on the part of the Government Officials or Pleaders has necessarily to be proved by the Government in every case. (Para 21)
19. The submission made by the learned Advocate-General that there was ‘fraud’ played by the officials in collusion with certain agencies to desist the ‘Government from preferring the appeals is convincing. We, therefore, keeping in view the magnitude of the alleged ‘fraud’ involved in these matters, the involvement of finances to an extent of hundreds of crores, the delay in not preferring the appeals in thousands of cases relating to acquisition of structures for Somasila Project and in view of the above authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court of India and this High Court, we are inclined to give sufficient latitude to the State for the delay caused in preferring these appeals and condone the delay in preferring the appeal.
20. But, at the same time, when we expressed our feeling that in order to prove that the Government is serious in preferring the appeals and in order to convince this Court that the Government is particular to prosecute the appeals with all seriousness we proposed that the Government should deposit 50% of the enhanced compensation into Court. The learned Advocate-General while expressing that it may be difficult for the State Government to deposit 50% of the enhanced compensation due to the critical financial position of the State, requested the Court to consider reducing the deposit of the enhanced compensation to 25%. Keeping in view the submissions made by the learned Advocate-General, the magnitude of the issue involved in these matters, the plea of fraud alleged to be played by some officials of the Government in collusion with certain agencies, the enquiry said to be ordered by the Government to identify the officials responsible for the causing of delay in all the cases relating to the acquisition, and also the fact that the respondents were not paid any amount towards enhanced compensation though the Execution Petitions filed by them is pending for over two years, with a view to safeguard the interest of both the parties, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal on condition that the appellant depositing 1/3rd of the enhanced compensation within twelve weeks from the date of this order.
21. In the result, the petitions are allowed. The delay in filing the appeals is condoned on condition of the appellant depositing 1/3rd of the enhanced compensation in these matters within twelve (12) weeks from the date of this order; failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of these applications. No costs.