1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 317 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 318 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 28039 OF 2009 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM : P.R. BORKAR.J. DATED : 23.04.2010 1. Heard Adv. Shri B.A. Shinde for the applicant. Adv. Shri R.P. Bhumkar waives notice for respondent No.1 and A.G.P. Shri S.N. Kendre waives notice for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Adv. Shri Bhumkar seeks leave to file Vakalatnama within one week. Leave granted. 2. This is an application for condonation of delay of 1130 days in filing appeal against the judgment and award passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kandhar, in L.A.R. No. 37 of 2003, decided on 09.08.2006. The enhancement awarded by the Trial Court is valued at Rs. 15,450/- as per note 2 below the appeal memo. It is stated in the application that after decision on 09.08.2006, certified copies were applied on 19.12.2006 and the copies were received on 29.12.2006. Thereafter, the District Government Pleader made proposal for filing the appeal to the Law and Judiciary Department, Aurangabad. The Law and Judiciary Department approved the proposal and forwarded to the Officer of the Government Pleader. We do not find on which date the approval was given by the Law and Judiciary Department or the date on which the Government Pleader received copies. It is further stated in para 4 of the application that the applicant enquired with the Government Pleader Office at Aurangabad regarding filing of the First Appeal, but he came to know that no appeal is filed. Therefore, the applicant approached the Executive Director, Godawari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation Ltd. and sought legal advice. Thereafter, the Corporation decided to file appeal. 3. It is not stated when the 3 Corporation took decision to file appeal. The application is completely silent on this point. It is further stated that due to non-availability of Court fees and expenses some time was lost and the Court fees were received on 20.10.2009. It is further stated that the applicant again applied for certified copies on 10.11.2009 and the same were received on 13.11.2009 and thereafter the application is filed. The application is completely vague. It does not give necessary dates to show when the Corporation learnt that the Government was not likely to file appeal and it should file appeal and when it took decision. So, in absence of these details, the abnormal delay of 1130 days cannot be lightly condoned. 4. The learned advocate for the applicant relied upon case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and anr. V/s. Mst. Katiji and Others, AIR 1987 S.C. 1353. In that case, the observations made in para 3 are important. 5. Particularly, taking into 4 consideration small quantum of compensation awarded by the Reference Court, this Court uses discretion in favour of the claimant. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. 6. In view of dismissal of application for condonation of delay, the Civil Application for stay does not survive and it is disposed of as such. 7. Issue Court fees refund certificate as per rules. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2010/APR10/ca317.10