1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD (1) Civil Application No. 329 of 2008 in RC No.3211 of 2003 with C.A.No.330 of 2008 in RC No.3211 of 2003 WITH (2) Civil Application No. 331 of 2008 in RC No.3205 of 2003 with C.A.No.332 of 2008 in RC No.3205 of 2003 WITH (3) Civil Application No. 333 of 2008 in RC No.3204 of 2003 with CA No.334 of 2008 in RC No.3204 of 2003 WITH (4) Civil Application No. 335 of 20-08 in RC No.3219 of 2003 with CA No.336 of 2008 in RC No.3219 of 2003 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mrs.S.D. Shelke, AGP for applicant / State of Maharashtra in Civil Applications at Sr. No. 1 & 3 and Mr. S.N. Kendre, AGP for applicant / State of Maharashtra in Civil Applications at Sr. No. 2 & 4 PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. These four applications arise from a common Judgment and Award passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division in six land acquisition references. Since the State of Maharashtra was aggrieved because of Awards, they preferred six 2 appeals before this Court. All the appeals were affected due to delay in filing of the appeals. So, the State of Maharashtra filed six Civil Applications which are numbered as 321 of 2008, 322 of 2008, 329 of 2008, 331 of 2008, 333 of 2008 and 335 of 2008. These applications sought condonation of delay of 567 days in filing of the first appeals. Out of these six civil applications, C.A.No.321 of 2008 and C.A.No. 322 of 2008 were taken up for hearing before this Court on 7th January, 2010. The applications seeking condonation of delay were opposed. My learned brother rejected the applications seeking condonation of delay holding that the delay cannot be condoned because it was caused merely due to lethargy on the part of the applicant / State of Maharashtra. He observed further that no proper explanation was offered for seeking condonation of delay. I think, these applications would also meet the same fate. I too find no plausible explanation as to why there was delay in deciding as to whether appeals would be filed and why after making of decision to file appeals, the appeals were not filed promptly. So, I am inclined not to allow these applications. The applications are rejected. 3. In view of this, the appeals would not survive. 17th June, 10 ( A.V.NIRGUDE,J. ) srm/ 3