{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8333 OF 2007 WITH FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.16829 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra & Another APPLICANTS VERSUS Shaikh Jamshid Kadarbhai & others RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8334 OF 2007 WITH FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.16892 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra & Another APPLICANTS VERSUS Shaikh Nurmahamod s/o Karimbhai RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8335 OF 2007 WITH FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.16884 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra & Another APPLICANTS VERSUS Shaikh Gulabbhai Sk.Bapubhai RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8336 OF 2007 WITH FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.16886 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra & Another APPLICANTS VERSUS Shaikh Aminabee Hajisultan (Died) Thru LRs RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8337 OF 2007 WITH FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.16890 OF 2007 {2} The State of Maharashtra & Another APPLICANTS VERSUS Shaikh Hidayet Shaikh Bapubhai & Another RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8338 OF 2007 WITH FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.16900 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra & Another APPLICANTS VERSUS Shaikh Bashir Shaikh Bapubhai RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8339 OF 2007 WITH FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.16882 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra & Another APPLICANTS VERSUS Rukminibai Bapu Sonawane RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.V.B.Ghatge, AGP for applicant / State Mr.S.L.Bhapkar, Advocate for respondents ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE : 5th September 2009 PER COURT: 1. By these applications the applicants have prayed for condonation of 355 days delay caused in preferring appeals challenging judgment and award dated 23.12.2005 passed by 2nd Ad Hoc Additional District Judge, Beed in land references. 2. It appears that after the judgment came to be passed on {3} 23.12.2005, certified copy was applied for on 27.12.2005 and the same was ready on 27.06.2006 and received on 09.07.2006. Thereafter, a proposal came to be forwarded to the Law & Judiciary Department and after granting approval the papers were sent to the office of Government Pleader on 19.09.2006. Thereafter, the present appeals came to be filed on 11.09.2007. No explanation is given as to why it took almost a year to file the appeals when the proposal was received by the office of government pleader on 19.09.2006 whereas the appeal is actually filed on 11.09.2007 . 3. A reference may usefully be given to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2008 (6) Mh.L.J 239 in the matter of “State of Maharashtra V/s Vithu Kalya Govari”. It is observed in the said judgment that application for condonation of delay must disclose sufficient and satisfactory reasons. Officials hassles cannot be a sufficient ground for condonation of delay. On perusal of the applications it is nowhere noticed that sufficient or satisfactory ground is stated for condonation of delay. 4. Apart from the above, on merits also it can be seen that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has granted compensation @ Rs.360/- per R whereas the Reference Court has granted compensation @ Rs. 500/- i.e. compensation is enhanced by Rs.140/- per R only that too on the basis of sale instances of adjoining lands where the lands were sold for almost Rs.1000/- per R. Considering the comparative market rate, prevailing at the relevant time, the amount of compensation enhanced by the reference court cannot be said to be exorbitant. Thus, on merits also there is no case for the applicant. {4} 5. In the premise, as no sufficient and satisfactory grounds are given for condonation of delay so also there is no merit in the appeals, the applications for condonation of delay are dismissed with no order as to costs. 6. As civil applications for condonation of delay are dismissed, the accompanying first appeals do not survive and stand rejected. The applicant is entitled for refund of court fees as per rules. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/ca8333-07