{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8340 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.16827 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra & Another APPLICANTS VERSUS Babasaheb Madhav Shirsath & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. K.S.Patil, AGP for applicant State ....... WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8341 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.16898 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra & Another APPLICANTS VERSUS Raosaheb Yadhav Sirsath & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. K.S.Patil, AGP for applicant State ....... WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8342 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.16875 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra & Another APPLICANTS VERSUS Anna Madhav Sirsath RESPONDENTS {2} ....... Mr. K.S.Patil, AGP for applicant State ....... WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8343 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.16877 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra & Another APPLICANTS VERSUS Bhika Dagdu Ghule & Another RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. K.S.Patil, AGP for applicant State ....... WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8344 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.16879 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra & Another APPLICANTS VERSUS Karbhari Shankar Sirsath & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. K.S.Patil, AGP for applicant State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 27th August 2010 PER COURT: 1. These are the applications filed by the applicant State {3} seeking condonation of delay of 374 days caused in preferring appeals challenging the judgment and award passed by 2nd Ad Hoc Additional District Judge, Beed in Land Reference Cases, which were preferred by the respective respondents. 2. It appears that Rule was issued in all these applications on 06.06.2008. Today, when the applications came up for final hearing, heard learned AGP for the applicant-State. As these applications raise common issue, the same are being disposed of by this common order. 3. According to the applicant-State, the impugned judgment was rendered on 03.02.2006, certified copy was applied for on 04.02.2006, which was ready for delivery on 05.06.2006 and was collected on the same day. Thereafter appeal was proposed, which was approved by the Law and Judiciary Department and the proposal to file the appeal was received to the office of Government Pleader on 25.09.2006. It is stated that thereafter the appeal was drafted and prepared, which consumed time and hence the appeals could not be filed within the period of limitation. The appeals were filed on 11.09.2007. 4. Learned AGP states that the delay is unintentional and not deliberate. He has also contended that due to the official difficulties and procedural hassles at various places in Government Departments the delay has occurred. Therefore, it is {4} prayed to condone the same. 5. Apart from the merit of the applications seeking condonation of delay, even the amount of compensation enhanced by the lower court is very meager, considering the area of land acquired. 6. A Division Bench of this Court in the matter of “State of Maharashtra and others V/s Vithu Kalya Govari & others” reported in 2008 (6) Mh.L.J. 239 has observed that explanation of ‘procedural hassles’ cannot be regarded as sufficient ground for condonation of delay. This Court has also held that the explanation must be satisfactory. 7. In view of the observations of this Court in the judgment referred supra, it is clear that the official hassles is no more a good ground seeking condonation of delay coupled with the fact that the amount of compensation enhanced by the lower court is very meager, taking into consideration the area of land acquired. In the premise, as the delay is not explained satisfactorily, all the applications, sans merits, stand rejected. Rule stands discharged. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/ca8340-07