1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 63. CA/10598/2008 (STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S KAUSALYABAI SHRIKISHAN SOMANI) In FAST/2392/2001 -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. D.V.Tele, A.G.P., for the appellant. Mr. P.C.Mayure, Adv., h/f Mr. S.G.Chapalgaonkar, Adv., for the respondent. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:3-3-2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard learned A.G.P. and Mr.P.C.Mayure, Counsel, for respective parties. 2. Delay of 1287 days in causing to file the appeal is sought to be condoned by the State. The order in LAR No.373/1988 is dt. 28.4.1997. After the judgment, proposal was forwarded from Law and Judiciary Department, Aurangabad, to the office of the Government Pleader, High Court 2 Bench at Aurangabad, for filing appeal. It was dt.2nd Jan., 1998. Thereafter, the concerned Assistant Government Pleader drafted appeal on 16.12.2000. The certified copies were received by the office and then the appeal came to be filed on 2nd Jan.,2001. There is delay of 1287 days in causing to file the appeal. The delay, indeed, is not sufficiently explained. It more projects remissness on the part of the concerned authorities, to prosecute the matter in right direction. 3. Now, turning to the award, the property of the claimant (50 R.) was acquired for the Ring Road at Latur. Sale instances were presented by the claimant before the Reference Court which were prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act indicated the price fetched at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq.ft., though the property was agricultural, however, it had reached potentiality of non 3 agricultural one. Several pieces of plots were sold at higher rates, considering its close proximity to the city and its importance being at the Ring Road. The award, consequently, at Rs. 13/- per sq.ft. dt.28.4.1997, cannot be said to be excessive. On these grounds also the appeal lacks merit. Delay condonation application, sans merit, rejected, with appeal. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/10598-08ca