FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2351 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 2825 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 2481 days caused in filing the first appeal. The applicant has preferred the first appeal against the judgment and award dated 22.1.2002, passed by the learned Joint District Judge at Latur in L.A.R. No. 299 of 1996. Heard Shri. Jadhav, learned A.G.P. in support of this application and Shri Hazare, learned counsel for the respondent. In the application, it is averred that the impugned judgment and award was passed on 22.1.2002. The Law and Judiciary department sanctioned the proposal and forwarded the same to the office of the Government Pleader on 4.5.2002. The appeal was drafted by the concerned A.G.P. on 5.9.2002. By letters dated 7.9.2002, 18.12.2002, 15.3.2003, 19.4.2004 and 23.9.2005, the certified copy of the judgment and award, typed copies of the judgment and award and other related documents were sought for. The application for certified copy was made on 13.8.2008 and the appeal was actually filed on 4.2.2009. On merits, it is submitted that the respondents claimants claimed compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- per hectare and the land Acquisition Officer awarded the compensation of Rs.22,000/- per hectare. The respondents preferred Reference for enhancement of compensation to the Reference Court contending that they used to raise Kharif and Rabbi crops in the said land. The acquired lands was of black cotton soil and they used to receive net income of Rs.50,000/- per hectare. After hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties, I am not satisfied with the explanation offered for condoning the delay. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the impugned judgment and award to find out whether the Reference Court awarded exorbitant compensation. The Land Acquisition Officer, while making award observed that the land under acquisition is of medium quality and capable to yield the Kharif and Rabbi crops. He also recorded that the acquired and is situated in the vicinity of village Ekambiwadi. The learned District Judge in para 11 observed that land Acquisition Officer, did not discuss the valuation and fertility of the acquired land nor he discussed the crops raised by the claimant in the acquired land, when the notification under section 4 was issued or at the time when the possession was taken by the acquiring body. He also observed from the sale instance produced at Exh.23 that respondent claimants used to raise crops like Hybrid, Udid, Toor etc. and considering this circumstances, he came to the conclusion that the quality of the acquired land was good. At the same time, the learned District Judge discarded the sale instance dated 2.4.1992, on the ground that the same was issued after notification under Section 4 dated 26.2.1992. Considering this, the learned Reference court came to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled to receive amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- per hectare. From the material on record, I am satisfied that the learned district Judge has not awarded exorbitant compensation. So far as the delay is concerned, the applicant has not explained the delay of 2481 days, which is nearly more than six years, for applying certified copy. Even though the matter was ready in all respects in August, 2008, the appeal was actually filed in February, 2009. Thus the delay is occasioned. In these circumstances, I am clearly of the opinion that the applicant has not sufficiently explained the delay. Considering the controversy raised in the appeal, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case for condonation of delay. Hence, civil application is dismissed. In view of dismissal of civil application for condonation of delay, first appeal stands dismissed. In the circumstances, civil application No. 2352 of 2009 for stay, does not survive and the same stands dismissed accordingly. (R.G. KETKAR, J.) 05.12.2009. rlj/