Ast 1 caf4998.09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4998 OF 2009 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4999 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL(ST) NO. 30426 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra. ... Applicant. Vs. Gurupadayya Maharudrayya Swami & Ors. ... Respondents. -------------- Ms.V.S.Mhaispurkar, AGP for Applicant. Mr.A.K.Suryawanshi for Respondent Nos. 1 to 7. -------------- CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR, J. DATE : APRIL 23, 2010. P.C. 1. This is an application for condonation of delay. The delay is of 5 years and 227 days. The State has filed appeal against Judgment tendered in LAR No.55 of 2001 rendered by learned Additional District Judge, Solapur. According to the Applicant-State, the delay was caused due to time consumed in processing of the proposal for appeal. There was process of Loksabha election in the meanwhile and as such staff of SLAO office was engaged in attending such work. The proposal was Ast 2 caf4998.09.sxw given to the Law and Judiciary which consumed certain time and thereafter it was received by the Office of the Government Pleader, High Court(A.S.). Again some time was consumed for drafting and presentation thereof. 2. Having heard the learned AGP and learned Counsel for the respondents and on going through the relevant explanation submitted in respect of the delay, I find it difficult to hold that the explanation is sufficient and acceptable. The learned AGP placed reliance on “Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & ors.”[(1987) 2 SCC 107]. The Apex Court held that the Courts should adopt liberal approach in the matters pertaining to condonation of delay. There cannot be any duality of opinion that liberal approach is required to be adopted in such matters. The delay of each day need not be explained. Still, however, it does not mean that the rigours of section 5 of the Limitation Act are diluted. The delay cannot be condoned only for asking and on premise of some explanation though it is found to be insufficient. 3. A Division Bench of this Court in “State of Maharashtra & ors. v/s. Vithu Kalya Govari & Ors.” 2008(4) All M.R. 856 held that such explanation of “procedural hassles cannot be regarded as sufficient”. In Ast 3 caf4998.09.sxw “Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. v/s. Jose Prazeres DE Piedade Pinto & Ors.” 2006(4) Mh.L.J. 318, it is held that the explanation must be satisfactory. 4. The explanation given in the application is rather unacceptable and dissatisfactory. The explanation that the delay is caused due to procedural hassles is not within the parameters of section 5 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, the application is liable to to be dismissed. The learned AGP would submit that the rate fixed by the Reference Court may affect the other land reference cases. It is therefore clarified that since the impugned Judgment is not being confirmed on merits and it is only on technical aspects that the appeal would be dismissed, the observations and findings recorded by the reference Court shall not be treated as binding in any other similar case. Application disposed of. 5. Civil Application No.4999 of 2009 is also disposed of accordingly. [ V.R.KINGAONKAR, J ]