FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2384 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 2904 OF 2009 ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ This application is for condonation of delay of 1112 days caused in filing the appeal. The applicants have preferred first appeal against the judgment and award dated 24.8.2005, passed by the learned Adhoc Additional District Judge, Latur in L.A.R. No. 1195 of 1992. Heard Shri. Jadhav, learned A.G.P. in support of this application and Shri. R.D. Biradar, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. In the application, it is averred that the Law and Judiciary department forwarded the proposal to the Office of the Government Pleader on 12.6.2006, which was nearly after 10 months from passing of the impugned judgment and award on 24.8.2005. The application for certified copy was made on 26.8.2008 i.e. nearly after three years. The certified copy was ready on 24.10.2008 and was collected on 3.11.2008. The certified copy of the judgment and award, typed copy of the judgment were submitted to the office of the Government Pleader on 19.11.2008. The appeal was actually filed on 5.2.2009. Since, I was not satisfied with the reasons given for condoning the delay, with the assistance of the learned counsel I have perused the impugned judgment and award, The land of the claimants were acquired for the Public Purpose under the provisons of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) and notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 7.4.1987 and the award was made, wherein the land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs.160/- per R and Rs.170/- per R. The Land Reference under Section 18 was filed. In support of the claim, the respondents examined Madhav Nivrutti Nargrale at Exh.22 and Ganpati Ramrao Dalve, at Exh.23. The respondents produced the sale instance. The learned trial Judge considered the sale instance produced at Exh.24. By that sale deed, the land was purchased at Rs.40,000/-. The rate comes to Rs.675/- per R. In para 21 of the impugned judgment and order, the learned trial Judge considered this aspect and came to the conclusion that the market value of the land acquired is Rs.320/- per R. The learned Trial Judge considered the fact that the land under sale deed at Exh.24 was purchased alongwith the share of pipeline, well and electric motor. I do not find that the learned Judge has awarded exorbitant compensation. Considering the delay and the reasons in support thereof and the controversy raised in the appeal, in my opinion, this is not fit case for condoning the delay. In the result, civil application is rejected. In view of rejection of civil application, first appeal also stands dismissed. (R.G. KETKAR, J.) Date:08.12.2009. rlj/