1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.2703 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra Appellant V/s Krishna Laxman Gaware (Died) L.Rs. Mangala and others. Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------- Smt. S.D. Shelke, AGP for the appellant/State. ----------------------------------------------------------- (CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J.) DATE : 6th October, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Heard Smt. Shelke, the learned AGP for the appellant/State. This appeal challenges the Judgment and award dated 05.12.1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangamner in Land Acquisition Reference No.22/1990. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award granting total compensation of Rs.62,539/-, whereas, the Reference Court has granted compensation of Rs.2,86,798/-. Thus there is difference of Rs.2,24,259/-. The learned AGP states that, the matter is therefore required to be considered by this Court on merits. 2. I have gone through the entire record of this 2 case. The impugned Judgment and decree is dated 05.12.1996 and the appeal was filed on 24.12.1997 with application for condonation of 294 days delay caused in filing the appeal. Thereafter the following events have occurred. 1. 16.06.1998 The Additional Registrar passed the order refusing to register the appeal for non- payment of court fees. 2. 19.11.1998 Application was filed for restoration of the appeal and setting aside the order refusing to register appeal. 3. 15.06.1999 The office endorsement shows that all the objections were removed. 4. 08.12.2002 The bailiff report indicate that the respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 were served, however the respondent no.1 was reported to be dead. 5. 07.02.2005 The matter was notified for taking appropriate steps in respect of death of respondent no.1. 6. 29.11.2005 The Registrar passed the order holding that the matters are awaited against the respondent no.1. 7. 24.10.2007 The matter was restored by this Court. 8. 06.06.2008 The civil application no.304/2008 for 3 condonation of delay was listed and the Rule was issued. 9. 07.09.2009 The delay caused in filing the appeal was condoned. 3. Bare perusal of the aforesaid events clearly indicate that, there is total failure to prosecute the instant appeal on the part of the State. Now the claimants must be under impression that either the State has not preferred the appeal and if any, appeal preferred, same must have been dismissed. The Judgment and decree was passed in the instant case on 05.12.1996. Now, at this stage, to issue notice of this appeal to the respondents- claimants challenging the impugned judgment and decree would unnecessarily cause prejudice and result in injustice. Hence the instant appeal is therefore dismissed for want of prosecution. (R.K. DESHPANDE) JUDGE GAS/fa2703.09