{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11363 OF 2005 WITH FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.16567 OF 2005 The State of Maharashtra and Another APPLICANTS VERSUS Kalyan Khiraji Pawar & Another RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.V.B.Ghatge, AGP for applicant / State Mr.D.R.Jaybhar, Advocate for respondents. ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE : 5th September 2009 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicants have prayed for condonation of 334 days delay caused in preferring first appeal against judgment and award dated 26.04.2004 passed by 3rd Ad Hoc Additional District Judge, Beed in a land reference. 2. It appears that impugned order came to be passed on 26.04.2004 and after obtaining certified copy and necessary approval the same was received in the office of Government Pleader for filing first appeal on 02.09.2004. However, the appeal came to be filed on 08.09.2005. No explanation is given as to why it took almost a year to file the appeal when the proposal was received by the office of government pleader on 02.09.2004 whereas the appeal is actually filed on 08.09.2004. 3. A reference may usefully be given to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2008 (6) Mh.L.J 239 in the {2} matter of “State of Maharashtra V/s Vithu Kalya Govari”. It is observed in the said judgment that application for condonation of delay must disclose sufficient and satisfactory reasons. Officials hassles cannot be a sufficient ground for condonation of delay. On perusal of the application it is nowhere noticed that sufficient or satisfactory ground is stated for condonation of delay. 4. Apart from the above on merit also it can be seen that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has granted compensation @ Rs.248/- per R whereas the Reference Court has granted compensation @ Rs. 550/- per R. The sale instances of the adjoining lands show that the prevailing market rate per R was Rs.1000/-. Therefore, it cannot be said that the reference court has granted exorbitant compensation to the respondents. Hence, on merits also there is no case for the applicant. 5. Considering the delay, which is not sufficiently and satisfactorily explained, and merit of the matter, the civil application deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the civil application is dismissed with no order as to costs. 6. As the civil application is dismissed, the accompanying first appeal does not survive and hence stands rejected. The applicant is entitled for refund of court fees. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/ca11363-05