{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7382 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.15728 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra & Another APPLICANTS VERSUS Gayabai Manikrao Wadkar RESPONDENT ....... Mr. K.S.Patil, AGP for applicant State Mr. S.S.Bhise h/f Mr.S.B.Bhapkar, Advocate for respondent ....... WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7381 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.15704 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra & Another APPLICANTS VERSUS Vinayak Manikrao Wadkar RESPONDENT ....... Mr. K.S.Patil, AGP for applicant State Mr. S.S.Bhise h/f Mr.S.B.Bhapkar, Advocate for respondent ....... WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7384 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.15730 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra & Another APPLICANTS VERSUS {2} Hariba Gangaram Jadhav RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. K.S.Patil, AGP for applicant State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 27th August 2010 PER COURT: 1. These are the applications filed by the applicant State seeking condonation of delay of 629 days caused in preferring appeals challenging the common judgment and award passed by Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Lautur, in Land Reference Cases, which were preferred by the respective respondents. 2. It appears that Rule was issued in all these applications on 06.06.2008. Today, when the applications came up for final hearing, heard learned counsel for the respective parties. As these applications raise common issue, the same are being disposed of by this common order. 3. According to the applicant-State, the impugned common judgment was rendered on 18.10.2005. Thereafter an ordinary copy of the judgment was obtained and thereafter appeal was proposed, which was approved by the Law and Judiciary Department and the proposal to file the appeal was received to the office of Government Pleader on 21.01.2006. It is stated that copies of the impugned judgment and other relevant documents were not {3} sent along with the proposal to file appeals, however the same were received subsequently on 28.06.2007 and hence the appeal could not be drafted and filed within the period of limitation. The appeals were filed on 28.08.2007. 4. Learned AGP states that the delay is unintentional and not deliberate. He has also contended that due to the official difficulties and procedural hassles at various places in Government Departments and also time was consumed in obtaining typed copy of the impugned judgment, the delay has occurred. Therefore, it is prayed to condone the same. 5. Apart from the merit of the application seeking condonation of delay, even the amount of compensation enhanced by the lower court is very meager, considering the area of land acquired. 6. A Division Bench of this Court in the matter of “State of Maharashtra and others V/s Vithu Kalya Govari & others” reported in 2008 (6) Mh.L.J. 239 has observed that explanation of ‘procedural hassles’ cannot be regarded as sufficient ground for condonation of delay. This Court has also held that the explanation must be satisfactory. 7. In view of the observations of this Court in the judgment referred supra, it is clear that the official hassles is no {4} more a good ground seeking condonation of delay coupled with the fact that the amount of compensation enhanced by the lower court is very meager, taking into consideration the area of land acquired. In the premise, as the delay is not explained satisfactorily, all the applications, sans merits, stand rejected. Rule stands discharged. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/ca7382-07