FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 207 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.25630 OF 2006 ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ This application is filed for condonation of delay of 4020 days caused in filing the appeal. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22nd September, 1995 passed by the learned C.J.S.D., Latur in L.A.R. NO.550 of 1989. 2 In the application, it is averred that the Law & Judiciary Department sanctioned proposal for filing appeal by passing resolution on 5th July, 1996. In the month of January / February, 2003 an inquiry was conducted in the office of Government Pleader regarding filing of first appeals. At the time of inquiry, it is averred that the files of the above first appeals were traced out. Though the papers were traced out, certified copy of the judgment and award, bill of costs and typed copies of the judgment and award were not received. Thereafter, information was called by the office of the Government pleader by sending fax on 15.1.2000, 31.8.2005 and 20.10.2005. Pursuant to this, the certified copies of the judgment and award, bill of costs, typed copies of the judgment and award were submitted on 24th November, 2005. Eventually, the appeal was filed on 22nd December, 2006. 3 On merits, the learned A.G.P. submitted that the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.1500/- which was enhanced by the reference Court to Rs. 40,838/-. 4 Shri Patil, learned Counsel for the respondent - claimant , on the other hand, submitted that the applicant has not at all explained the delay and no sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay. He has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project & another, 2008(6) All M.R. (SC) 954 as also the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra & others vs. Vithu Kalya Govari & others, 2008(5) Bom CR 323. Apart from this, he also made a statement that the respondent has already received compensation as awarded by the impugned judgment and order dated 22nd September, 1995. 5 In the first place, the judgment and award was passed on 22nd September, 1995 and the L. & J.D. Sanctioned the proposal for filing appeal by passing resolution on 5th July, 1996 i.e. nearly after 10 months. Though it is contended that fax was sent on 15th January, 2000 and the inquiry was conducted some time in January / February, 2003, the fax messages were subsequently sent on 31st August, 2005, 20th October, 2005 i.e. again after lapse of 2 years. Secondly, it is submitted that certified copy of the judgment and award, bill of costs and typed copies of the judgment and award were submitted on 24th November, 2005 and the appeal was filed on 22nd December, 2006 i.e. after more than one year thereafter. In fact, there is no explanation whatsoever for the period between 25th November, 2005 and 22nd December, 2006. Thus, the applicant has miserably failed to make out any cause much less, sufficient cause for condoning the delay. 6 Even otherwise, on behalf of respondent a statement is made that the respondent has already received compensation as awarded by the reference Court. Considering all these facts, in my opinion, no case is made out for condoning the delay. 7 With the result, application is rejected with no order as to costs. (R.G. KETKAR, J.) 02.12.2009. PLK/*