1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8255 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.14290 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra through Collector, Jalgaon and ors. ..Applicants Versus Murlidhar Soma Fegade and ors. ..Respondents Mr S.N.Kendre, AGP for applicants Mr A.B.Kale, Advocate for respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8257 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.14305 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra through Collector, Jalgaon and ors. ..Applicants Versus Rajaram Sadu Fegade died through L.Rs. Geetabai Rajaram Fegade and ors. ..Respondents Mr S.N.Kendre, AGP for applicants Mr A.B.Kale, Advocate for respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8259 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.14296 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra through Collector, Jalgaon and ors. ..Applicants Versus Jagannath Nama Fegade ..Respondent 2 Mr S.N.Kendre, AGP for applicants Mr A.B.Kale, Advocate for respondent CORAM : MRS MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 23rd September, 2011 PER COURT These civil applications for condonation of delay of 291 days are filed by the State. Learned Assistant Government Pleader states that delay of 291 is caused in filing the appeals on account of procedural and administrative grounds. He placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Moinuddin Kunhi, reported in AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 2577. 2. Learned Counsel for the respondents opposes applications for condonation of delay. He submits that for the project of construction of flyover on railway at Hekari, Taluka Bhusawal, District Jalgaon, land was acquired. Against the said acquisition, the concerned land owners filed references challenging the amount of the award fixed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, against which the Government has filed these appeals. However, in all these group matters delay of 291 days is caused. Learned Counsel points out that earlier, while disposing of the civil applications for condonation of delay in other connected appeals, this Court has taken a view that the explanation given by the State is not satisfactory and not within the parameters of Section 5 of the Limitation 3 Act. Reliance is placed on State of Maharashtra Vs. Vithu Kalya Gowari, reported in 2008 (4) ALL MR 856 and all those applications were dismissed. 3. The orders passed by this Court on 21.10.2008 in Civil Application No.4380 of 2008, where delay was of 621 days, order dated 21.10.2008 in Civil Application No.4366 of 2008 where delay was of 701 days, order dated 31.3.2009 in Civil Application No.4385 of 2008, where delay was of 528 days and order dated 21.8.2008 in Civil Application No.4360 of 2008, the delay of 532 days was not condoned. The present matters are connected appeals and the civil applications are of the similar nature, therefore, I take the same view as it is consistent with the previous orders passed by this Court. Applications for condonation of delay are, therefore, dismissed for the reasons mentioned above. ( MRS MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. ) (vvr/8255.11ca)