1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1672 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 2214 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1673 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 2322 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Applicants Versus Dagadu Tanhaji Garje and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. N. N. Jadhav, AGP for the applicants Mr. V.M. Chate, advocate for respondents ..... CORAM: R.G. KETKAR, J. DATED: 10TH NOVEMBER, 2009 PER COURT:- 1 These civil applications are taken out by the applicants for condonation of delay of 565 days, caused in filing appeals. The appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 23.12.2005, passed by the learned III Adhoc Additional District Judge, Beed, thereby disposing of the land references. In the applications, it is set out that the application was made for certified copies on 27.12.2005 and the certified copies were ready and collected on 2 18.4.2006. The Law and Judiciary department sanctioned the proposal and forwarded the same to the office of the Government Pleader on 8.9.2006. In para 3, it is asserted that the typed copies of the judgment and order were prepared and submitted to the office of the Government Pleader on 16.6.2007, by the acquiring body. On this basis, prayer is made for condoning the delay. 2 I have heard Shri Jadhav, learned AGP in support of these applications and Shri Chate, learned counsel for respondents, in both the applications. Mr. Chate, invited my attention to the order dated 19.12.2008 passed by this Court (V.R. Kingaonkar, J.), in civil application No. 3190 of 2008 and other connected civil applications and the order dated 24.3.2009 (K.K. Tated, J.) in civil application No. 6316 of 2008, in first appeal (st.) No. 10810 of 2008. He further submits that the acquisition in the present case is same as that of in the order dated 24.3.2009. After hearing both the sides, the court rejected the civil applications on the ground that no sufficient cause was made out. This Court (K.K. Tated, J.), while deciding civil application No. 6316 of 2008, as mentioned above, has considered the judgment rendered in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer (SIP) and another Vs. Jose Prazeres De Piedade Pinto and others reported in 2006 (4) Mh.L.J. 318 and in the case of State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Vithu Kalya Govari and others, reported in 2008 (6) B.C.J. 822. 3 3 I find substance in the contentions raised on behalf of the respondents. In my opinion, the applicants have not made out sufficient cause for condoning the delay. In the result, civil applications are rejected with no order as to costs. (R.G.KETKAR, J.) rlj/