JUDGMENT
M.R. Calla, J.
1. These eight First Appeals against the order dated 30-3-1998 passed by the Assistant Judge at Himatnagar in LAQ Cases No. 3396/89 to 3403/89 were filed before this Court on 5-4-1999. Subsequently the Civil Applications seeking condonation of delay of fifty days in filing the First Appeals were filed on 19-6-1999. Rule was issued in the civil applications on 27-9-1999 and in response to the rule issued by this Court, which was made returnable on 15-10-1999 appearance was entered by Mr. Mukesh R. Shah, Ld. advocate appearing for the claimants, that is Respondents No. 1 to 5.
2. On 22-11-199 in Civil Application No. 5799 of 1999 in First Appeal No. 1913 of 1999 the following order was passed by the Court:-
” This application for condonation of delay is yet one more application showing the movement of file from table to table to explain the delay in filing the appeal beyond limitation. The learned AGP is directed to furnish the report within two weeks that within five years’ time how many Land Acquisition appeals have been filed within the period of limitation prescribed by law, and how many appeals have been filed beyond the period of limitation to know whether the appellants are taking the law of limitation to be non-existent as granted for them, or they are acting with due diligence in prosecuting the litigation with some lapse in some cases. S.O. to 7th December,1999.”
3. Today only the Civil Application No. 5779 of 1999 in First Appeal No. 1913 of 1999 was listed on the board, and therefore on the request of Ld. counsel for both the parties, other seven matters were also called for and taken up as prayed for by both the parties. 4. We called upon Ld. AGP to produce the report as was directed by this Court on 22-11-1999, and Ld. AGP Mr. Premal Joshi has produced before this Court a statement dated 25-11-1999, which shows the year-wise break up from year 1995 to 1999 (Upto 31-10-1999) of the First Appeals filed by the Government, within time and after expiry of the time. This statement is reproduced as under:-
———————————————————
Year In time Delay Total
———————————————————
1995 1071 1519 2590
1996 441 1938 2379
1997 1165 2206 3371
1998 1159 3643 4802
1999 152 4591 4743
(upto 31-10-1999)
——————————————————–
3988 13897 17885
5. This statement reveals that, out of total number of 17885 appeals, 13897 appeals have been filed as time barred, that is about 77 % of the First Appeals have been filed as time barred appeals by the State of Gujarat. In the year 1998 itself out of 4802, 3643 appeals were filed as time barred appeals and in the year 1999 the situation is far more worse in as much as out of 4743 appeals, 4591 appeals have been filed as time barred appeals and only 152 appeals have been filed within time upto to 31st October 1999. While we are taking up these eight appeals along with civil applications moved therein for condonation of delay which were filed only on 5-4-99 and 19-6-1999 respectively, today on 22-12-1999, we express our regrets that the State Government itself which is a mighty and virtuous litigant has been taking up the matters of filing the appeals so lightly, that large number of cases have been filed after expiry of prescribed period of limitation. We were told by the Ld. Asst. Govt. Pleader that in C.A. No. 3784/99 in F.A. No. 443/99 Division Bench of this Court directed the Chief Secretary of the State of Gujarat to file a report before the Court by 10-12-1999 on the question of delays in filing appeals and action against erring officers, and such a report dated 9-12-1999 has been filed in this Court by Chief Secretary on 10-12-99. We may also mention that today itself certain matters had come up before us in which there is delay of more than 360 days and in those matters Civil Applications No. 3461/99 to 3468/99 in First Appeals Nos. 211/99 to 218/99 even certified copies of the impugned orders had been applied for much after the expiry of the period of limitation. 6. In this case the delay has been sought to be condoned through the civil application on the ground that the impugned order was passed on 30-3-1998, the certified copy was applied for on 2-4-1998 and the same was delivered on 20-11-998, District Government Pleader, Sabarkantha at Himatnagar had sent his proposal vide letter dated 3-12-1998 not to file an appeal against said judgment, which was received by the ‘J’ Branch of the Legal Department on 12-1-1999. After receipt of aforesaid proposal, concerned Assistant had prepared a note calling for the report under Rule 132, 133 of Law Officers Rules from the concerned administrative department and submitted to the concerned Dy. Secretary (J) for his approval on 14-1-1999. Thereafter on 15-1-1999 the decision was taken by the Dy. Secretary (J) as proposed by the District Government Pleader. Thereafter on 16-2-1999 the file was sent to R & B department for obtaining opinion. The file was then received back again with an opinion to file appeal against the said judgment, that is the controlling branch in the Legal department on 22-2-1999. On the same day the concerned Assistant prepared a detailed note to file an appeal and placed before the Dy. Secretary (J) for taking decision. The Dy. Secretary (J) instructed on 23-2-99 to discuss the matter and therefore, after discussions the file was resubmitted to Dy. Secretary (J) for taking a decision for filing the appeal in this case. Dy. Secretary (J) took a decision on 3-3-99 to file the appeal and this decision was approved by the concerned Secretary on the same day. Thereafter on 8-3-1999 it was sent to Law Minister and on the same day draft of resolution was sent to typing branch. After receipt of the typed copy of the resolution on 12-3-99 the resolution was sent to office of Govt. Pleader at Ahmedabad with an instruction to file appeal in this case. The matter was thereafter handed over to concerned Assistant Govt. Pleader, who after going through the same prepared memo of the appeal and the same was filed on 5-4-1999. On the basis of aforesaid reasons it has been pleaded that all the eight civil applications for condonation of delay be granted. There was no inaction or negligence on the part of applicants in prosecuting the matters in time and that the delay has been taken due to movement of file in taking appropriate decision for preferring the appeals and therefore there is sufficient cause which has prevented the applicant from prosecuting the appeals in time.
7. From the above facts it is clear that the matter has not been taken up in right earnest at different levels. The file has been made to travel from one table to another table, and the period of more than four months have been taken in deciding as to whether the appeals are to be filed or not. Such matters seeking condonation of delay on similar grounds are coming up before this Court frequently and in most of the cases delays have been condoned. In these matters since earlier the view was taken at the level of Dy. Secretary that the appeals are not required to be filed and subsequently this decision has been changed and there is delay of 50 days only and these applications seeking condonation of delay have not been contested on behalf of the respondents, we find it appropriate to condone the delay of fifty days in filing these appeals and accordingly these eight civil applications seeking condonation of delay are allowed. Rule made absolute in each of these eight civil applications.
8. Since the delay stands condoned in the eight appeals, Ld. AGP and Mr. Mukesh R. Shah appearing for the respondents submitted that, the appeals may also be taken up as the matters are short as far as facts are concerned and the same could be decided at this stage. The appeals are therefore admitted. Mr. Mukesh Shah waives service in each of the eight appeals. 9. The land in question was acquired for the purpose of Modasa-Tintoi-Shamlaji diversion route. Notification under section 4 for acquiring the land in question was issued on 2-1-1986. The notification under section 6 was thereafter issued on 11-11-1986, and the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 18-2-1989 granting compensation at the rate of Rs. 4-00 per sq. meter in respect of irrigated land and Rs. 2-00 per sq. meter for non-irrigated land. The subject matter came up before Reference Court, the Reference Court passed a common order dated 30-3-1998 granting compensation at the rate of Rs. 32-00 per sq. meter in respect of irrigated land and at Rs. 26-00 in case of non-irrigated land. Against this common order dated 30-3-1998 present appeals have been preferred. 10 At the very threshold Mr. Mukesh Shah appearing for the respondents-claimants submitted that the order dated 30-3-1998 has been passed on the basis of an earlier decision of the Reference Court referred in Land Acquisition Case No. 1221/87 dated 30-12-1996 at Exhibit-20 (before the Reference Court) whereby the compensation has been granted at the rate of Rs. 32-00 per sq. meter for irrigated land and Rs. 26-00 per sq. meter for non-irrigated land. The land which was the subject matter of acquisition in the aforesaid judgment at Exhibit-20 rendered by the Reference Court also belongs to the same village, that is Modasa and it was acquired for an irrigation project, and in the case of Exhibit-20 the notification under section 4 had been issued on 20-11-1983, whereas in the instant case it has been issued on 28-1-1986; while the land in question in both the cases are of the same village and are exactly identical and therefore claimants have been rightly awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 32-00 and Rs. 26-00 per sq. meter for irrigated and non-irrigated lands respectively.
11. These factual aspects pointed out by Mr. Shah have not been disputed by Ld. AGP Mr. Premal Joshi. In this view of the matter, we find that the order as has been passed by Ld. Assistant Judge, Sabarkantha at Himatnagar awarding compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 32-00 and Rs. 26-00 respectively for irrigated and nonirrigated lands is justified and it does not warrant any interference. The order has been based on an earlier decision of the Reference Court with regard to the same village and identically situated lands and it has been given out that the judgment Exhibit-20 has attained finality and it has also been accepted by the Government and acted upon, and the compensation has been paid to the claimants accordingly. Therefore in our opinion these appeals must fail.
12. Before parting with this judgment, we wish to express that, no doubt there are large number of cases pending in the Courts and the pendency of cases is a matter of serious concern, but the duration of delay in disposal of the pending cases can be avoided provided due interest is shown by the Government itself. The figures contained in the statement which has been referred to hereinabove itself goes to show that, none else, but the Government itself is responsible for filing time barred appeals in large number. It was also given out by Ld. counsel for both the sides that, 95 % of the First Appeals are in the matters of Land Acquisition. In such cases if the appeals are filed at belated stages merely on account of administrative delays the process of justice stands thwarted and defeated by none else but by the functionaries of the Welfare State itself. We are constrained to say that, in large number of cases adjournments are taken repeatedly, replies are not filed in time, matters are filed with inordinate and unexplained delays and not only that the State Government files replies after considerable delays and that also after number of years and after seeking large number of adjournments. Delay starts right from the stage of the service of notice, if notice is served and yet no appearance, then – Rule, and then again the service of rule. Thereafter time is sought by Govt. Pleaders to take instructions from the department and despite repeated opportunities replies are not filed. Even after filing the replies- the time is sought that officer incharge is not available and even if the officer incharge is available, the time is sought on the ground that record is not available or that court fee is to be filed. At times it is stated by the learned Govt. Pleaders that they had not received the papers from their own office. The time is also sought on the ground that on the previous date some other Asst. Govt. Pleader had appeared and the copies of pleadings i.e. rejoinder or additional affidavit etc. given on the last date by other side have remained with him and he is not available. These are only few illustrative grounds on the basis of which adjournments are sought and they may not be taken to be exhaustive. In such cases if orders are passed without having the reply of the State Government on record and the maters are decided on the basis of the pleadings of the petitioners alone, the public interest and public exchequer may suffer and therefore, time is granted to the Government for filing replies and that itself delays the process of administration of justice and yet a voice is raised at the top level that, judiciary is responsible for delay in the disposal of the cases. If any survey is conducted by any researcher on this count and datas are collected, it will be found that, it is not the judiciary but the State Government itself which is responsible to a great extent for delaying the process of disposal of the cases by not filing replies in time, by taking number of adjournments, by not keeping their officers present in the Court, by not keeping relevant records available before the Court, by not appointing adequate number of Law Officers and Public Prosecutors, and by not providing proper infrastructure to the offices of Govt. Pleaders and Courts. We do understand that the executive machinery or the office of the Govt. Pleader and its law officers may be having their own reasons and causes, compulsions or constraints, limitation or handicapes for seeking time or for not filing the matters and pleadings on time, but then, at least, let it not be complained by the executive and those at the helm of the affairs of the executive that judiciary should set its house in order or that judiciary is responsible for delays in disposal of cases; while judiciary has neither the adequate infrastructure nor adequate number of judges and presiding officers in courts to be compatible with the multitude of litigation on enormous increase. In large number of courts in this State at least there are no public prosecutors and in absence of public prosecutor no criminal trial can proceed. What to talk of the financial autonomy for judiciary, which is the need of the day, Law and Justice as such is not even included in the development plans except the building part of it. Thus even while working with so many handicaps, the judiciary does enjoy the mounting faith of the people and let this faith be not shaken by any remark or comment at any level of the executive to throw the entire burden on judiciary for delay in disposal of cases.
We do hope and believe that, these words and observations coming from the Bench addressed to the responsive Government will be taken in right earnest and seriously and appropriate measures shall be taken to avoid the delays in future. 13. These eight civil applicataions for condonation of delay are allowed and rule is made absolute in each of them, but the eight First Appeals are hereby dismissed on merits. No order as to costs.