{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13008 OF 2005 WITH FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.21222 OF 2005 The State of Maharashtra APPLICANTS VERSUS Sk.Janu Sk.Sardar & Another RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.V.B.Ghatge, AGP for applicant / State Mr.S.L.Bhapkar, Advocate for respondents ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE : 5th September 2009 PER COURT: 1. By the present civil application, the applicant has prayed for condonation of 335 days delay in preferring appeal challenging judgment and award dated 16.08.2004 passed by VIIth Ad Hoc Additional District Judge, Beed in a land reference. 2. It appears that after the judgment came to be passed on 16.08.2004, certified copy was applied for on 17.08.2004 and the same was received on 22.09.2004. Thereafter, a proposal came to be forwarded to the Law & Judiciary Department and after granting approval the papers were sent to the office of Government Pleader on 15.03.2005. Thereafter, the present appeal came to be filed on 18.11.2005. No explanation is given as to why it took 8 months to file the appeal when the proposal was received by the office of government pleader on 15.03.2005 whereas the appeal is actually filed on 18.11.2005. 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 merits also it can be seen that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has granted compensation @ Rs.300/- per R whereas the Reference Court has granted compensation @ Rs. 500/- i.e. compensation is enhanced by Rs.200/- per R only that too on the basis of sale instances of adjoining lands where the lands were sold for almost Rs.900/- or more per R. Considering the comparative market rate, prevailing at the relevant time, the amount of compensation enhanced by the reference court cannot be said to be exorbitant. Thus, on merits also there is no case for the applicant. 5. In the premise, as no sufficient and satisfactory grounds are given for condonation of delay so also there is no merit in the appeal, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed with no order as to costs. 6. As civil application for condonation of delay is dismissed, the accompanying first appeal does not survive and stands rejected. The applicant is entitled for refund of court fees as per rules. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/ca13008-05