- (1.) These three appeals, by the claimant-respondents in certain Land Acquisition Appeals before the High Court are preferred, by Special Leave, against the common order dated 14-6-1973 of the High Court of Mysore (Karnataka) condoning, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, certain delays on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer in preferring the three corresponding appeals in M.F.A. No. 290 of 1973, M.F.A. 293 of 1973 and M.F.A. No. 289 of 1973 respectively. The appeals before the High Court were directed against the common award made by the Civil Judge, Bangalore District, in certain Land Acquisition References under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act steeply enhancing the compensation for the lands of the appellants acquired for the purpose of the 'University of Agricultural Sciences' at Bangalore. The circumstances leading up to and necessitating the prayer for the condonation of the delays before the High Court seem somewhat unfortunate, casting, as they do, aspersions on the probity and rectitude of the conduct and good faith of the Government Counsel entrusted with the conduct of land acquisition cases.
(2.) The common award, in the three land acquisition references was passed by the learned Civil Judge on 17-7-1970. Application for certified copies was made on 31-8-1971; copies obtained on 5-1-1972 and M.F.A. No. 289 of 1973 was lodged before the High Court on 19-1-1972 and the other two appeals viz., M.F.A. 290 of 1973 and 293 of 1973 on 10-4-1972. There were, thus, substantial delays in preferring the appeals. The Land Acquisition Officer, appellant before the High Court, filed applications to have these delays excused. The Division Bench of the High Court was persuaded to make an order condoning the delay. The grievance of the State in the appeals was that the lands which had been purchased in the year 1962 for a sum of Rs. 7,000/- per acre, were acquired pursuant to the preliminary notification dated 2-3-1963 and the award of the Land Acquisition Officer granting Rs. 58,000/- per acre was itself unduly generous having regard to the fact that the acquisition was just about an year after the purchase by the claimants and that the further enhancement by the Civil Court to Rs. 1,45,200/- per acre clearly suffered from the vice of extreme excessiveness.
(3.) Sri R. B. Datar, learned counsel appearing in support of these appeals assailed the order of the High Court on the ground that the High Court fell into a manifest error in condoning these inordinate and wholly unjustified delays and that explanation offered before, and accepted by, the High Court cannot, in law, be held to constitute 'sufficient cause' for purposes and within the meaning of, Section 5. Learned Counsel strenuously urged that the rights vesting in the successful parties to a litigation by the expiry of the period of limitation should not lightly be interfered with unless it was established that the appeal could not have been lodged in time despite the exercise of reasonable deligence on the part of the appellant. Learned counsel further contended that the fact that the Government Pleaders had not discharged their duty to the Government, even if true, would be wholly beside the point as that would be a matter of internal administration. If Government was not able to set its own house in order, says learned counsel, the opposite party, who had the benefit of the adjudication should not be exposed to a time barred appeal. There cannot, says counsel, be one standard for an ordinary litigant and another for Government. On the merits of the cause shown, learned counsel said, the explanation served only to aggravate the negligence; that the explanation might, at best, amount to sufficient-cause for the delay up to 20-1-1971 when the Civil Judge wrote to the Government and the latter, admittedly, was put on notice of the award and decree passed in the cases and that the subsequent delays of over an year thereafter in preferring the appeals cannot, even on the most liberal construction of 'sufficient cause', be said to be justified.;