1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2357 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 291 OF 2010 Tukaram s/o Eknath Godse & ors. ...Applicants VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents ..... Shri Asha Rakh, advocate for the applicants Smt. S.D.Shelke, A.G.P. for respondent no.1 ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 14 th February, 2011 PER COURT : 1 Heard learned respective counsel for the parties. 2 This is an application preferred by the applicants (original claimants) for condonation of delay of 2005 days caused in filing the 2 accompanying First Appeal, challenging the judgment and award dated 12.4.2004, rendered by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalna, in L.A.R. No. 190 of 1998. 3 It is the contention of the applicants that they were shifted from their ordinary place of residence to other place for labour work, and therefore, there was communication gap between them and their advocate. The applicants also contend that they were not knowing the decision of the Reference Court, since they could not keep track with the proceedings, which resulted into delay of 1900 days in filing the accompanying First Appeal. The applicants further contend that the said delay is accidental and not intentional. It is also the case of the applicants that after acquisition of their land, they became landless. Moreover, the sale instances were brought on record to show the prevailing market rate at Rs.2,000/- per Are, and therefore, the applicants pray that the delay caused be condoned in the interest of justice. 4 Learned A.G.P. opposed the present application vehemently and submitted that the applicants failed to plead and prove the sufficient cause for condonation of delay. It is also submitted that the said delay is willful, deliberate and intentional, as well as inordinate, and therefore, same cannot be condoned. Learned A.G.P. also submitted that the Reference Court has considered the sale instances and gave enhanced compensation of Rs.215/- per Are, which is proper and appropriate and no 3 interference therein is warranted, and consequently, delay caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal cannot be condoned. 5 Considering the rival submissions, there is no cogent evidence on record to substantiate the contention of the applicants that there was communication gap between them and the advocate, as well as there is no reliable evidence on record to hold that the applicants were not aware about the decision of the Reference Court. Moreover, the applicants have not produced any evidence on record to show that they shifted their residence as alleged. Besides, the delay caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal is of 2005 days, which is inordinate delay. It also does not appear the delay is not willful, deliberate and intentional, and hence, same cannot be condoned. 6 Apart from that, as regards the merits, it appears that the Special Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation of Rs.430 per Are and the Reference Court awarded enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.215/- per Are i.e. Rs.645/- per Are, after considering the sale instances and the potentiality and fertility of the acquired land, as well as the land under the sale deeds, and therefore, considering the said aspect, balance does not tilt in favour of the applicants. 7 In the circumstances, present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits, and therefore, same stands dismissed. 4 Consequently, the registration of the accompanying First Appeal is refused. Court fee be refunded as per rules. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) dbm/ca2357.10