1 Civil Application No.8047 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8047 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.14416 OF 2009 The Special Land Acquisition Officer, UTP (Hatnur) No.1, Jalgaon and another APPLICANTS VERSUS Nathu Kashiram Mali and others RESPONDENTS Mrs.R.K.Ladda, learned A.G.P. For applicants. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 25/02/2011 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant/State has prayed to condone the delay of 683 days in filing first appeal, challenging the judgment and award passed by the Learned 2nd Jt.Civil Judge Senior Division, Jalgaon in L.A.R.No.1516/2005, dated 03/02/2007. 2. Heard learned A.G.P. It appears that after the judgment and award was passed by the concerned Court, an application was moved by the applicant to obtain certified copies of the judgment and award and the same was supplied on 05/07/2007. There is not a whisper about why the applicant has not applied to obtain the certified copies within 5 months, when the award was passed in the month of Feb. 2007. It is further contended that the proposal was sent, which was 2 Civil Application No.8047 of 2009 approved and communicated to the office of A.G.P. on the same day. It is contended that as the documents received alongwith the proposal to prefer an appeal was in-complete, hence office of A.G.P., vide communication dated 14/08/2007 and 20/04/2009, requested the concerned office to forward the requisite papers immediately. Those papers were received on 16/06/2009 and thereafter, the appeal was presented before this Court on 10/07/2009. It is contended that for these reasons the delay was caused and as it was not an intentional, the delay be condoned. 3. A Division Bench of this Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra and others versus Vithu Kalya Govari and others, reported in 2008(6) Mh.L.J. 239 has observed that explanation of ‘official hassles’ can not be regarded as sufficient ground for condonation of delay. This Court has also held that the explanation must be satisfactory. 4. In view of the observations of the Division Bench in the judgment referred supra, it is clear that the ‘official hassles’ is not a good ground to condone the delay. In the premise, as the delay is not explained satisfactorily, application, sans merits, stands rejected. Court fees, if any paid by the applicant/State, be refunded as per rules. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/FEB. 2011/ca8047-09