The State Government is not required to prove the delay in a more strict way than a private individual, but it ought to have stated the various steps taken by it in filing the appeal.

G. D. DUBE, J.

( 1 ) AN application under S. 5 of Limitation Act has been moved by the State of U. P. to condone the delay of 109 days in filing the appeal.

( 2 ) THE impugned judgment and award was given by the VI Additional District Judge on 27-2-1989. The appeal was filed on 20-91989 with a court-fee of Rs. 10. 00 only. There was a deficiency of Rs. 54,885. 00. The Stamp Reporter had reported on 19-9-89 that the appeal was beyond time by 109 days on that date.

( 3 ) IN order to explain the delay the clerk of Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred SLAO for brief), Azamgarh has stated in his affidavit that after receipt of the copy of the judgment and decree the Collector sent the papers to the State Government, which gave its direction on 1-7-1989 for filing appeal. It was received in the officer of SLAO on 31-7-1989. The clerk of SLAO proceeded to Allahabad on 2-8-1989 and made inquiries from the office of the Standing Counsel about the expenses. After making the inquiries the clerk went back. The clerk came to know that there was strike in the High Court hence he was advised to come to the court after the strike. Hence he has come to High Court on 21-8-1989. It was stated that as High Court remained closed due to strike, so the appeal could not be filed before 20-9-1989.

( 4 ) IN the counter affidavit the respondent Rajendra Nath alleged that State Government and its employees have been highly negligent. First of all they have applied for copy after 1-1/2 months of judgment which delay they have not explained when they themselves admit that the Collector immediately after the judgment, had instructed the District Government Counsel to apply for copy of the judgment and expenses were placed at his disposal. The SLAO clerk has not disclosed that when the papers were sent to the Collector which were admittedly received on 25-5-1989. The State Government has also not explained the reasons for issue of necessary instructions on 22-7-1989 when they came to know that the last date for filing appeal was up to 14-7-1989. It was stated that the strike in High Court began before 10-8- 1989. It was only an Advocate" strike not to appear before the Court. It was not for doing the chambers work by the counsel. It was also stated that the registry of the High Court remained open except on a few days. The appeal, therefore, could be filed within the period of limitation.

( 5 ) WE heard the parties counsel after exchange of affidavit and counter affidavit. While looking into the record we noticed that there was an allegation that the official of the department concerned came to the office of the Chief Standing Counsel on 21st of August, 1989 with expenses. Despite this supply of expenses appeal was filed with a deficiency of court-fee as stated about. This deficiency was made good on 15-11-1989. We also notice that Court-fee stamps worth Rs. 300. 00, Rs. 500/ -, Rs. 1000/-, Rs. 3000. 00, Rs. 25,000. 00 and Rs. 25,000. 00 were purchased on 6-11-1989, 1-11-1989, 6-11-1989, 7-111989 and 3-11-1989 respectively. We, therefore, directed the State Government to explain the circumstances under which the stamps were purchased on various dates and why the appeal was filed with a huge deficiency when the money had already been placed at the disposal of State counsel on 21-8-1989.

( 6 ) IN order to explain the circumstances which led to the furnishing of court-fee by annexing court-fee stamp purchased on different dates Ravi Prakash a clerk of the Chief Standing Counsel, Allahabad has filed his affidavit. He alleged that Court-fee stamp of Rs. 300. 00, Rs. 1000. 00 and Rs. 500. 00 were purchased from the stamp vendor in the High Court. He also stated that one Rang Bahadur, Upper Division Assistant, Incharge of First Appeal Section in Chief Standing Counsel Office submitted voucher on 23-10-89 to Baijnath for supplying of court-fee in respect of some first appeals. The Accountant got Challan and cheque for Rs. 7,50,000. 00 prepared on 2