1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6957 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.14378 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6958 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.14389 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6959 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.14391 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6960 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.14394 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6961 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.14397 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6962 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.14387 OF 2007 2 The State of Maharashtra and another APPLICANTS VERSUS Madhukar S/o.Prabatrao Suryawanshi and another RESPONDENTS Mr.V.B.Ghatge, learned AGP for applicants in all the petitions. Mr.P.G.Rodge, learned counsel for respondents in all the petitions. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 05/09/2009 PER COURT : 1. All these 6 civil applications are filed in the 6 first appeals preferred by the applicants for condonation of delay of 872 days u/s. 5 of The Limitation Act. As the facts in all these civil applications are identical and common question of Law require to be decided, all the civil applications to be disposed of by one common order. 2. Heard respective counsels for the parties. 3. From the contents in the applications, it is not under dispute that the Learned Civil Judge, S.D. at Ahmedpur Camp at Udgir by common judgment and award passed on 21/12/2004, disposed of LAR No.3158/2001, 3159/2001, 3160/2001, 3170/2001, 3171/2001 and 3172/2001. Applicants have applied for certified copy on 3 08/02/2005 which was ready and delivered on the same day. It further appears that the proposal was submitted to the Law and Judiciary Department to prefer an appeal to challenge this judgment and award and accordingly the sanction was accorded to prefer the appeals by the Law and Judiciary Department. It further appears that thereafter the appeals were presented on 10/08/2007. For the grounds stated to condone the delay, I am not satisfied that these grounds are just and sufficient to condone the delay. Apart from it, if the appeals need consideration on merit, the S.L.A.O. who has acquired the lands, has fixed the price @ 345/- per R so far as the dry land is concerned and Rs.387/- per R for the irrigated/semi- irrigated land. While deciding the references, the Reference Court has enhanced this amount of compensation @ 750/- per R. i.e. he has near about doubled the amount of compensation fixed by the S.L.A.O. With the assistance of learned counsels appearing for the parties, perused the judgment passed by the Reference Court. 3 sale instances are quoted in the judgment of Reference Court respectively at Exh.20, 22 and 23. The price quoted in these 3 sale deeds is Rs. 5,000/- for 40R which comes to around Rs.1,250/- per R. As against this, the amount of compensation enhanced is Rs.750/- i.e. nearabout half of the amount of market price under the sale deeds which were produced on record. If it is so, the amount of compensation enhanced by the Reference Court can not be said to be exorbitant and required no interference at the hands of the First Appellate Court. Thus there are no merits in the appeals also. 4 4. For the foregoing reasons, as the cause shown is not just and sufficient to condone the delay, all these 6 civil applications for condonation of delay require to be rejected and accordingly they are rejected with no order as to costs. Consequently as the civil applications for condontion of delay stand rejected, the accompanied 6 first appeals also stand dismissed with no order as to costs. The applicants are entitled for refund of requisite court fee as per rules. All the civil applications stand disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/SEP 2009/ca6957-07