1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10774 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 19036 OF 2008 Spl Land Acquisition Officer and another ... Applicants Versus Vijay Trambak Patil ... Respondent -------- Shri. D. R. Korde, Additional Government Pleader for appellant Shri. A. B. Kale, Advocate for the respondent -------- CORAM: R.G. Ketkar, J. DATE: 6th November, 2009 PER COURT 1. This Civil Application is taken out by the applicants for condoning the delay of 647 days caused in filing the first appeal. The order challenged in the first appeal was passed on 25th April, 2006. The proposal for filing the appeal was forwarded by the Law and Judiciary department to the applicants on 21st November, 2006. The court fees was received by the office of Government Pleader on 2 29th March, 2008 and the present appeal is filed on 25th September, 2008. 2. I have heard Shri. Korde, A.G.P. in support of the application and Shri. A.B. Kale, Advocate on behalf of the respondent/original applicant. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have also perused the impugned order. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 was issued on 28th February, 1998. The applicant relied upon sale deed dated 25th September, 1995 (Exh.18) and taking into account this sale instance, the reference Court awarded compensation @ Rs. 2,00,000/- per Hectare. Shri. Kale, learned counsel has also invited my attention to the order dated 19th September, 2008 passed by this Court (N.V. Dabholkar, J.) in Civil Application No. 2173 of 2007 in First Appeal Stamp No. 4081 of 2007 (The State of Maharashtra Vs. Sakhubai Dagdu Patil). That application was filed for condonation of delay of 135 days caused in filing the appeal. It is common ground between the parties that the acquisition proceedings involved therein and the present acquisition proceedings are one and the same. This Court also considered the same sale instance of 25th September, 1995 and held that the compensation awarded by the reference Court was not exorbitant. 3 3. Considering the explanation offered in paragraph No. 2 of the application and also the order passed by this Court dated 19th September, 2008 in the case of State of Maharashtra V. Sakhubai Dagdu Patil, in my opinion, this is not a fit case for condoning the delay. Hence, the civil application is rejected. ( R.G. Ketkar, J. ) 06.11.2009 SRM/* 4