1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4266 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 7330 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant Versus Ashruba Rambhau Tambada ...Respondent ..... Mr. N. N. Jadhav, AGP for the applicant Mr. V.M. Chate, advocate for respondent ..... CORAM: R.G. KETKAR, J. DATED: 10TH NOVEMBER, 2009 PER COURT:- 1 This civil application is taken out by the applicant for condonation of delay of 1229 days, caused in filing appeal. The appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 04.08.2004, passed by the learned VIth Adhoc Additional District Judge, Beed, thereby disposing of the Land Acquisition Reference No. 192 of 1996. In the application, it is set out that the application was made for certified copies on 05.08.2004 and the certified copies were ready and collected on 26.8.2004. Thereafter, the Law and Judiciary department 2 sanctioned the proposal and forwarded the same to the office of the Government Pleader. In para 4, it is asserted that the though the appeal was drafted but since the certified copies and deficit court fees were not available with the office of the Government Pleader the same could not be filed immediately. On this basis, prayer is made for condoning the delay. 2 I have heard Shri Jadhav, learned AGP in support of this application and Shri Chate, learned counsel for respondents. Mr. Chate, invited my attention to the order dated 19.12.2008 passed by this Court (V.R. Kingaonkar, J.), in civil application No. 3190 of 2008 and other connected civil applications and the order dated 24.3.2009 (K.K. Tated, J.) in civil application No. 6316 of 2008, in first appeal (st.) No. 10810 of 2008. He further submits that the acquisition in the present case is same as that of in the order dated 24.3.2009. After hearing both the sides, the court rejected the civil applications on the ground that no sufficient cause was made out. This Court (K.K. Tated, J.), while deciding civil application No. 6316 of 2008, as mentioned above, has considered the judgments rendered in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer (SIP) and another Vs. Jose Prazeres De Piedade Pinto and others reported in 2006 (4) Mh.L.J. 318 and in the case of State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Vithu Kalya Govari and others, reported in 2008 (6) B.C.J. 822. 3 3 I find substance in the contentions raised on behalf of the respondents. In my opinion, the applicant has not made out sufficient cause for condoning the delay. In the result, civil application is rejected with no order as to costs. (R.G.KETKAR, J.) rlj/