B.J.SHETHNA, J. - (1.) IT is most unfortunate that without properly understanding the order passed by the courts below, none else but the State of Rajasthan has filed this petition through the Distt. Collector, Rajsamand, which is nothing but a sheer waste of the time of this Court and public money.
(2.) BY an order dated 26.2.1997, Revenue Appellate Authority has simply remanded the matter to the State Govt. for the purpose of allotment of land in question to the present respondent - original appellant, Mangilal. The same was challenged by way of appeal before the Board of Revenue, which was filed after the expiry of period of limitation. The Board of Revenue by its order dated 14.10.1997 (Annex.6) dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was barred by period of limitation and no proper explanation was given to condone the delay in filing the appeal late by six months in an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by the State and also dismissed it on the ground that the Revenue Appellate Authority has merely remanded the matter to the State for the purpose of allotment of plots. The order passed by the Board of Revenue was also very much clear. in spite of that the review petition was' filed before the Board of Revenue by the State Govt., which was also dismissed on 14.5.1998 (Annex.7) by specifically mentioning that the matter was simply remanded to the State Govt. and ultimate decision has to be taken by the State Govt. on merits of the case. In spite of this, this writ petition is filed before this Court through the Collector, Rajsamand. At whose cost? This type of litigation is one of the main reasons for the back log of thousands of cases before this Court and before the subordinate courts. Application made under Section 5 of the Limitation Act made by the State Govt. before the Board of Revenue for condoning the delay in filing the appeal late was rightly rejected as no cause much less sufficient case was shown in filing the appeal late The Revenue Appellate Authority passed and pronounced the order in presence of the Advocate of State Govt. The submission that there was a delay of 96 days and not of six months in filing the appeal late is also baseless. Either there is a delay of six months or 96 days, it would not make any difference unless and until it is properly explained. This type of lame excuses cannot be accepted namely that the authority came to know about the passing of the order by the R.A.A. only on 19.8.1997, the burden is tried to be thrown on the shoulders of Advocate of State Govt., who appeared before the Revenue Appellate Authority that he sent it late. That appart, the impugned order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (Annex.4) dated 26.2.1997 was more than clear by which the matter was only remanded to the State Govt. for the purpose of allotment. Even the Board of Revenue while dismissing the appeal filed by the State on 14.10.1997 on the ground of limitation as well as on merits made it abundantly clear that matter was merely remanded to the State Govt. still the review was filed, wherein, the Board of Revenue by its order dated 14.5.1998 (annex. 7) made it absolutely clear that the matter was simply remanded to the State Govt. and it has to take decision on the merits of the case. Still, the State Govt. having battalion of advocates, advisors and officers thought it fit to file such frivolous petition before this Court. The submission of Mr. Tatia was that they wanted clarification from this Court so that the State Govt. may not unnecessarily put to any trouble. This Court is not meant for advising the Govt. It is the State Govt. who has to understand the order passed by the Court and should not have filed such false, frivolous petition.
(3.) UNDER the circumstances, this petition is dismissed with a special cost of Rs. 10,000/ - which shall be deposited by. the State Govt. with the Registrar General of this Court within one month from today. On depositing the said amount, the Registrar General will utilise it for the legal aid purpose. After depositing the cost of Rs. 10,000/ -the Chief Secretary of the State Govt. shall fix the responsibility on a person who was responsible for filing such false, frivolous petition before this Court and recover the same from him within three months thereof. Copy of this order be forwarded to Chief Secretary of State of Rajasthan forthwith for its implementation.;