1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CA NO.9271/2005 in FAST NO.12215/2005 --------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mrs. R.R.Mane, AGP for the applicant. Respondent/sole served. ... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 11th JUNE, 2009 ... P.C.:- 1. Heard learned A.G.P. There is delay of 734 days in causing to file the appeal against the judgment and order dt.9.4.2003, passed by the Reference Court in LAR No.505/1998. While explaining reasonableness in the matter to condone the delay, learned AGP also took me to the order under challenge, to stress that the enhancement is difficult to be countenanced as the learned Reference Court has not considered the sale instances in proper tone. 2 2. The delay, indeed, is not properly explained by the State. The certified copy was received on 22nd March, 2005 and, thereafter, the appeal should have been filed in reasonable period. The application to condone the delay itself is moved after June, 2005, with the affidavit of Gulabrao having been sworn in on 17th June, 2005. 3. The order under challenge depicts a very sorry state of affairs as the learned Special Land Acquisition Officer, while considering the determination of the price, has applied ready reckoner for sale or the price which basically was not in tune with the settled position of law. Learned Special Land Acquisition Officer was required to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act which he has not followed. The learned Reference Court considered the situation, the prevailing price in the vicinity and made the enhancement at the rate of Rs.380/- per R.of Gat No.111 admeasuring 1 H. 28 R. making the total figure of Rs.48,640/-, with 3 other statutory benefits. The delay is not properly explained. The order does not require any interference. Application rejected. Appeal dismissed. (K.U. CHANDIWAL), JUDGE agp/ca9271-05