The State's approach in seeking condonation of delay should be pragmatic but not pedantic, and the law of limitation makes no distinction between the State and the citizens of the country.

1. By this second appeal appellant/State is aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.07.2006 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Dewas in Civil First Appeal No. 13-A/06 dismissing the appeal on ground of limitation.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the order dated 28.02.2003 was passed by the Revenue Authority Dewas in Revenue Case No. 2/A-1/2001-2002 concerning land survey No. 293 area 5.30 acre situated in Ganji Compound, Dewas. The respondent Shrimant Tukojirao Panwar had filed a suit under Section 57(3) of Land Revenue Code before the II Civil Judge Class-II, Dewas for declaration and permanent injunction against the State Government, claiming the land on his owner ship and that he was in possession for more than 65 years and had acquired Bhumi Swami rights. The State filed the written statement before the trial Court and denied the right of the plaintiff respondent and submitted that the land belonged to the State Government and was recorded in the Revenue record as Nazul Land and after coming to the force that MP Land Revenue Code the land vested in the State Government and the plaintiff respondent had no right title over the same and it also challenged the jurisdiction of the trial Court to try the suit. The trial Court however, granted the decree of title in favour of the plaintiff and the order passed by the Revenue Authority, declaring the land to be Nazul land was quashed.

3. Being aggrieved, the appellant-State had filed an appeal before the III Additional District Judge, Dewas and the appeal was registered as No. 13-A/2006, however the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on ground of limitation and hence the present second appeal.

4. Counsel for the appellant-State has candidly admitted that the appeal was barred by 382 days and the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act has been filed for condonation of delay since the time was spent in obtaining the certified copy and other sanctions and the State has prayed that the delay be condoned.

5. The Appellate Court also considering the fact that the respondent plaintiff was in possession of land through out, even during the period of limitation and moreover the State was unable to explain the delay especially since the judgment and decree were fixed for particular date and prompt action was not taken and they could not claim lack of knowledge. Moreover Counsel placed reliance on the Apex Court judgment Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition, Kerala vs. K.V. Ayisumma, (1996) 10 SCC 634, whereby the Court observed that even the State could be excused, for not filing appropriate application, since, it was well known that the business of the Government is always done leisurely by officers, who had no or evince no personal interest at different levels and it would be very difficult to explain the day to day delay. Counsel submitted that the attitude of the appellate Court in this light was perverse illegal and ought to be set aside and the appeal should have been decided on merit. Counsel urged that the respondent plaintiff has now been declared Bhumi Swami over the Government land. The State has undoubtedly failed to take action promptly but the essential action was taken by Revenue Authority by order dated 28.02.2003 and it was fully in accordance with provisions of law and in this light the judgment of the trial Court also needed to set aside.

6. At this juncture, however Counsel candidly admitted that the present second appeal is also barred by 1687 days, which is more than four years. He however is placed reliance in the matter of Special Tehsildar (supra) whereby the Government was seeking condonation of delay and the Apex Court had directed that approach of the Court should be pragmatic but not pedantic and the Government should not be insisted upon to explain each and every day's delay. Counsel submitted that since several permissions were required for filing the appeal in the present case also and it was not received on time and the delay