1 Revw.Appln No. 209.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 209 OF 2010 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 299 OF 1992 WITH FIRST APPEAL ST.NO. 4119 OF 1988 (WITH CONNECTED MATTERS) Pandharinath Gangaram Ugale Age 69 years Occup.Agril., R/o Thitesangvi,Tq. Shrigonda, District Ahmednagar .. .. Applicant Versus The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar. .. .. Respondent. (2) REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 210 OF 2010 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 294 OF 1992 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO. 4723 OF 1988 WITH (3) REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 211 OF 2010 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 291 OF 1992 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO. 18448 OF 1988 WITH (4)REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 212 OF 2010 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 300 OF 1992 IN 2 Revw.Appln No. 209.10 FIRST APPEAL ST.NO. 5834 OF 1988 WITH (5)REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 213 OF 2010 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 287 OF 1992 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO. 6622 OF 1988 WITH (6)REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 214 OF 2010 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 293 OF 1992 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO. 4117 OF 1988 WITH (7)REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 215 OF 2010 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 315 OF 1992 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO. 4235 OF 1988 WITH (8)REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 216 OF 2010 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 284 OF 1992 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO. 4231 OF 1988 WITH (9)REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 217 OF 2010 IN CIVIL APPLICATION 316 OF 1992 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 5832 OF 1988 WITH (10)REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 218 OF 2010 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 290 OF 1992 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO. 4746 OF 1988 WITH (11)REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 219 OF 2010 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 308 OF 1992 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO. 4742 OF 1988 3 Revw.Appln No. 209.10 WITH (12)REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 220 OF 2010 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 283 OF 1992 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO. 4802 OF 1988 WITH (13)REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 221 OF 2010 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 296 OF 1992 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO. 5830 OF 1988 WITH (14)REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 222 OF 2010 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 288 OF 1992 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO. 6624 OF 1988 WITH (15)REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 223 OF 2010 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 282 OF 1992 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO. 18450 OF 1988 WITH (16)REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 224 OF 2010 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 286 OF 1992 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO. 4737 OF 1988 WITH (17)REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 225 OF 2010 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 285 OF 1992 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO. 4115 OF 1988 .... Shri K.S.Bhore,Advocate for Applicants. Shri S.D.Kaldate,AGP for the Respondent. .... 4 Revw.Appln No. 209.10 CORAM : K. K. TATED, J. DATE : 22ND DECEMBER, 2010. PER COURT: . Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGP for respondents. 2. These review applications are preferred by the original claimants for reviewing orders dated 30th July, 2003 and dated 4th June, 2002. 3. A FEW FACTS OF THE MATTER ARE AS UNDER : . The applicants lands’ were acquired by the State of Maharashtra by issuing Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 11th December, 1977 for “Seena Project”. After following due process of law Special Land Acquisition Officer declared award dated 18th January, 1983 and awarded compensation in respect of acquired lands. 4. Being aggrieved by the Award passed by 5 Revw.Appln No. 209.10 Special Land Acquisition Officer, the applicants preferred References under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) per Acre for dry crop land and Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) for irrigated lands. The Reference Court fixed the marked value at the rate of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand) for dry crop land and Rs. 8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand) for irrigated land by the Judgment and Award dated 21st August, 1985. 5. Thereafter, applicants preferred Appeals in this Court. In preferring those appeals, there was delay of two to three years. Therefore, applicants preferred Civil Applications for condonation of delay. Those, Civil Applications for condonation of delay were rejected by this Court (CORAM: D.S.ZOTING, J.)by order dated 30th July,2003 and in Review applications No. 215 of 2010, 217 and 219 of 2010, by order dated 4th June, 2002, (Coram: B.B. Vagyani, J.), the applicants filed present review 6 Revw.Appln No. 209.10 applications on 6th October, 2010. They also preferred civil Application for condonation of delay. Those Civil Applications for condonation of delay were allowed by this Court (Coram: S.V.Gangapurwala, J.) on 15th October, 2010. 6. In all these review applications, applicants raised following four grounds only: (I) The applicant could not file appeal due to hit by cyclone as sustained a great loss. (II) It ought to be held that, due to the drought condition the claimant like applicant are facing financial problem. (III) It ought to be held that the adjoining the villagers first appeal filed from the same group is admitted by this Hon’ble Court. (IV) It ought to be held that the reason given by applicant are sufficient grounds for condonation of delay. 7 Revw.Appln No. 209.10 7. Mr. Bhore, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that there was delay in preferring First Appeals, as the applicants could not file appeals due to hit by cyclone as they sustained a great loss. He further submits that due to drought conditions the applicants were facing financial problems. All these grounds were considered by this Court in order dated 30th July, 2003. 8. It is to be noted that expiration of period of limitation prescribed for making an appeal gives rise to right in favour of the decree holder to treat the decree as binding between the parties and this legal right which has accrued to the decree holder by lapse of time should not be light heartedly disturbed. The Apex Court in the matter of Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by Lrs. Versus Executive Engineer Jalgaon Medium Project & Another reported in (2008) 6 ALL M.R. Page No. 954, held that delay should not be condoned unless and until sufficient cause is shown by the party. 8 Revw.Appln No. 209.10 9. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 enables the Appellate Court to admit the Appeals after prescribed period on the appellant/applicants’ satisfying the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the Appeal in time. This satisfaction about the sufficiency of the cause in not preferring the appeals in time that confers jurisdiction to the Appellate Court for condoning the delay in filing the Appeal. If the applicant does not show sufficient cause in preferring the Appeal in time, the Court has no jurisdiction to arbitrarily condone the delay for the same of in the matter advancing substantial justice. Our High Court in the matter of Kamalbai Narsaiyya Shrimal and another Vs. Ganpat Vithalrao Gavare, reported in 2007(1) Bom.C.R. 51, held that merely because there is no intentional delay cannot be a ground for condonation, because no one will intentionally cause delay. Head Note of this Judgment reads as under: “Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, sec.96-Limitation Act, 1963, Sec.5- 9 Revw.Appln No. 209.10 Condonation of delay-In filing appeal against a decree for possession-Appeal filed with 6 months delay with an application for condonation of delay, on ground of poverty rejected by lower Appellate Court – Petition against -Held, facts show that petitioners had appeared before Executing Court and sought time for vacating premises. Only ground set up is that delay in appeal was not intentional. It is to be considered whether non-grant of condonation will cause irreparable loss to applicants and whether it is sufficient cause for condonation. Merely because there is no intentional delay cannot be a ground for condonation , because no one will intentionally cause delay. Poverty is cited as a ground for it but they does not explain how this difficulty is surmounted by them after 6 months time. Contentions that discretion to condone delay has to be exercised in interest of furthering justice in case (2001)6 S.C.C.176 or that it should be 10 Revw.Appln No. 209.10 condoned when award itself is not sustainable, can have no application to facts of this case. Conclusion of absence of ‘sufficient cause’ can not be held to be perverse or mala fide and calls for no interference.” . Thus, it is to be noted that mistake or ignorance of law is not sufficient cause for condonation of delay, poverty of the applicants in consequence of which they were not able to pay court fees in time, is also not sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 10. I have gone through the papers of the proceeding of those Review Applications. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants in support of various grounds, which are urged in the review applications. On consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the applicants, according to me, there is no apparent error on the face of the record justifying invocation of review jurisdiction. No case in review applications is 11 Revw.Appln No. 209.10 made out by the applicants. In view of this, the review applications are dismissed. 11. No order as to costs. Sd/- [K. K. TATED, J.] MTK.