{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6257 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.13284 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Ramkisan Pandurang Lad & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. K.S.Patil, AGP for applicant State ....... WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6255 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.13219 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Bhimrao Ganpati Lad & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. K.S.Patil, AGP for applicant State Mr. S.L.Bhapkar, Advocate for the respondents ....... WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6256 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.13290 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Subhash Kashinath More & others RESPONDENTS {2} ....... Mr. K.S.Patil, AGP for applicant State Mr. D.R.Jaybhar, Advocate for the respondents ....... WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6258 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.13288 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Tukaram Jijaba Lad RESPONDENT ....... Mr. K.S.Patil, AGP for applicant State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 27th August 2010 PER COURT: 1. These are the applications filed by the applicant State seeking condonation of delay of 728 days caused in preferring appeals challenging the judgment and award passed by District Judge, Beed in Land Reference Cases, which were preferred by the respective respondents. 2. It appears that Rule was issued in all these applications on 06.06.2008. Today, when the applications came up for final hearing, heard learned counsel for the respective parties. As these applications raise common issue, the same are being {3} disposed of by this common order. 3. According to the applicant-State, the impugned judgment was rendered on 10.12.2004, certified copy was applied for on 13.12.2004, which was ready for delivery on 07.05.2005 and was collected on the same day. Thereafter appeal was proposed, which was approved by the Law and Judiciary Department and the proposal to file the appeal was received to the office of Government Pleader on 06.08.2005. It is stated that copies of the impugned judgment and other relevant documents were not sent along with the proposal to file appeals, however the same were received subsequently on 13.01.2007 and hence the appeal could not be drafted and filed within the period of limitation. The appeals were filed on 31.07.2007. 4. Learned AGP states that the delay is unintentional and not deliberate. He has also contended that due to the official difficulties and procedural hassles at various places in Government Departments and also time was consumed in obtaining typed copy of the impugned judgment, the delay has occurred. Therefore, it is prayed to condone the same. 5. Apart from the merit of the application seeking condonation of delay, even the amount of compensation enhanced by the lower court is very meager, considering the area of land acquired. {4} 6. A Division Bench of this Court in the matter of “State of Maharashtra and others V/s Vithu Kalya Govari & others” reported in 2008 (6) Mh.L.J. 239 has observed that explanation of ‘procedural hassles’ cannot be regarded as sufficient ground for condonation of delay. This Court has also held that the explanation must be satisfactory. 7. In view of the observations of this Court in the judgment referred supra, it is clear that the official hassles is no more a good ground seeking condonation of delay coupled with the fact that the amount of compensation enhanced by the lower court is very meager, taking into consideration the area of land acquired. In the premise, as the delay is not explained satisfactorily, all the applications, sans merits, stand rejected. Rule stands discharged. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/ca6257-07