1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 22. CA/4237/2009 In FAST/8008/2009 WITH CA/4238/2009 In FAST/8055/2009 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.VD Rakh, AGP for State ___ CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 19th December, 2009. ... 1) Heard. 2) The delay of 680 days, causing to file the appeal is sought to be condoned, seeking to challenge the Award in LAR Nos. 46/2001 and 47/2001, recorded by the learned III Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Latur. The delay as sought to be explained does not display sufficient grounds to condone the same. The learned AGP, while criticizing the Award, took me to the findings/reasons recorded by the learned Judge. I find that the learned Judge rightly negatived Exhibit-16, the sale instance from Murud Akola and to some extent considered the 2 sale instance (Exhibit-17) dated 2.8.1994. Incidentally, the learned Judge was equipped with the earlier orders in LAR No. 1145/1999 recorded by him, wherein enhancement @ Rs. 800 per R for the Award of the year of 1996 of SLAO and present Award of SLAO was of 1998, the learned Judge considered the rule of escalation as 15% p.a. Apart from that, the bell in respect of inadequacy of the sale instance was also ringing in the mind of the learned Judge. The Award or calculation of the value @ Rs.850/- per R. only, does not seem to be flowing out of context. 3) The applications lack merit, they are dismissed. Consequently, the appeals dismissed. Necessary court fees be refunded as per the Rules. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/ca4237.09