1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3468 OF 2007 (For condonation of delay) IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.14831 OF 2006 AND FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.14831 OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra ) (Through the Special Land ) Acquisition Officer, Metro ) Centre No.3, Panvel, ) District : Raigad ) ......Applicant/Appellant (Orig. Opponent) V/s 1. Shri Ganpat Balu Palekar, Adult ) 2. Shri Gana Balu Palekar, Adult ) 3. Smt. Thakibai Hari Bhagwat, Adult, ) 4. Smt. Deubai Shama Patil (Deceased) ) Through Legal Heirs ) Nos. 1 to 3 above ) 5. Anandibai Balu Palekar ) (Deceased) Through legal heirs ) Nos. 1 to 3 above. ) All R/o Valavali, Taluka Panvel, ) District Raigad ) .....Respondents. (Orig. Claimants) ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3469 OF 2007 (For stay) 2 IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.14831 OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra ) (Through the Special Land ) Acquisition Officer, Metro ) Centre No.3, Panvel, ) District : Raigad ) ......Applicant. (Orig. Opponent) V/s 1. Shri Ganpat Balu Palekar, Adult ) 2. Shri Gana Balu Palekar, Adult ) 3. Smt. Thakibai Hari Bhagwat, Adult, ) 4. Smt. Deubai Shama Patil (Deceased) ) Through Legal Heirs ) Nos. 1 to 3 above ) 5. Anandibai Balu Palekar ) (Deceased) Through legal heirs ) Nos. 1 to 3 above. ) All R/o Valavali, Taluka Panvel, ) District Raigad ) .....Respondents. (Orig. Claimants) -------- ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3470 OF 2007 (For condonation of delay) IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.14834 OF 2006 AND FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.14834 OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra ) (Through the Special Land ) Acquisition Officer, Metro ) Centre No.3, Panvel, ) District : Raigad ) ......Applicant/Appellant. (Orig. Opponent) 3 V/s 1. Shri Gajanan Kashinath Patil, Adult, ) 2. Smt. Tulsabai Kashinath Patil, Adult ) 3. Smt. Geeta Parsuram Patil, Adult ) 4. Smt. Sugandha Balaram Gavali,Adult) 5. Smt. Kusum Suresh Patil, Adult ) 6. Smt. Yesubai Kaluram Patil, ) (deceased) ) Claimant Nos. 1 to 5 are her ) legal representatives. ) ) All R/o. Valavali, Taluka Panvel, ) District Raigad. ) ......Respondents. (Orig. claimants) ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3471 OF 2007 (For stay) IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.14834 OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra ) (Through the Special Land ) Acquisition Officer, Metro ) Centre No.3, Panvel, ) District : Raigad ) ......Applicant. (Orig. Opponent) V/s 1. Shri Gajanan Kashinath Patil, Adult, ) 2. Smt. Tulsabai Kashinath Patil, Adult ) 3. Smt. Geeta Parsuram Patil, Adult ) 4. Smt. Sugandha Balaram Gavali,Adult) 5. Smt. Kusum Suresh Patil, Adult ) 6. Smt. Yesubai Kaluram Patil, ) (deceased) ) Claimant Nos. 1 to 5 are her ) legal representatives. ) 4 ) All R/o. Valavali, Taluka Panvel, ) District Raigad. ) ......Respondents. (Orig. claimants) ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3472 OF 2007 (For condonation of delay) IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.14843 OF 2006 AND FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.14843 OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra ) (Through the Special Land ) Acquisition Officer, Metro ) Centre No.3, Panvel, ) District : Raigad ) ......Applicant/Appellant. (Orig. Opponent) V/s Shri Gopinath Arjun Patil, ) Adult, ) R/o. Valavali, Tal. Panvel, ) District Raigad. ) ....... Respondent. ------ ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3473 OF 2007 (For stay) IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.14843 OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra ) (Through the Special Land ) Acquisition Officer, Metro ) Centre No.3, Panvel, ) District : Raigad ) ......Applicant. (Orig. Opponent) 5 V/s Shri Gopinath Arjun Patil, ) Adult, ) R/o. Valavali, Tal. Panvel, ) District Raigad. ) ....... Respondent. ------ Common appearance: Mr. K.K. Tated for the State. Mr. U.B. Nighot for the claimants. ----- CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND V.M.KANADE, J. Order reserved on 10/06/2008 Order pronounced on 10/07/2008 P.C.: (Per V.M. Kanade, J.) 1. These are applications for condonation of delay of 1 year and 72 days in filing the appeals, challenging the judgment and award dated 17.01.2005 in L.A.R. No.1514 of 2002. The following reason has been given in para 3 of each of the applications for delay caused in filing the appeals. "3. The Applicant says that the concerned District Government Pleader took some time to forward opinion immediately to the Law and Judiciary Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. Thereafter, the 6 Law and Judiciary Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai took some time to scrutinize the proposal forwarded by the District Government Pleader for preferring appeal. The Applicant says that these facts were explained by the District Government Pleader by his affidavit dated 22.6.2006." 2. It is submitted that the concerned District Government Pleader took some time to forward the opinion immediately to the Law and Judiciary Department and, thereafter, the Law and Judiciary Department of Mantralaya took some time to scrutinize the proposal forwarded by the District Government Pleader for preferring appeal. 3. In our view, no sufficient cause has been shown by the State for condonation of delay. The ratio of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs Vithu Kalya Govari & Ors in Civil Application No.3200 of 2007 in First Appeal (Stamp) No. 11231 of 2007 decided on 26/06/2008, squarely applies to the facts of this case and, therefore, delay cannot be condoned. Even on merits, no case is made out by the State. Perusal of the impugned judgment and award discloses that the Reference Court was justified in awarding Rs 17/- per sq. meter as market value of the land under reference and while doing so, the Reference Court relied upon the Judgment in L.A.R. No.151 of 1992 and also on the evidence of P.W.1 - Ganpat Palkekar. 4. For the aforestated reasons, Civil Application Nos. 3468 of 7 2007, Civil Application No.3470 of 2007 & Civil Application No.3472 of 2007 taken out for condonation of delay are dismissed. Consequently, First Appeal (Stamp) No.14831 of 2006, First Appeal (Stamp) No.14834 of 2006 and First Appeal (Stamp) No.14843 of 2006 are also dismissed. Since these three appeals are dismissed, Civil Application Nos. 3469 of 2007, 3471 of 2007 and 3473 of 2007 taken out in respective appeals for stay are also disposed of as they do not survive. CHIEF JUSTICE V.M. KANADE, J.