(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Civil Application No. 5201 of 2007 (In First Appeal Stamp No. 10477/2007) The State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Beed. .. Applicant. versus Bhaskar s/o. Dhondiba Jogdand, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Chousala, Taluka and District : Beed. .. Respondent .......................... Mr. B.V. Wagh, Assistant Government Pleader, for the applicant. Mr. S.V. Mundhe, Advocate, for the respondent. .......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 7TH SEPTEMBER 2009. COURT'S ORDER : 1. This is an application for condonation of delay. There is a (2) delay of 903 days caused in filing the First Appeal. 2. Mr. B.V. Wagh, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for the applicant, submits that the delay has occasioned on three grounds viz. firstly, the concerned Land Acquisition Officer was transferred, secondly, the staff was busy in Parliamentary as well as State Assembly elections, and thirdly, due to inadequate staff, necessary steps for filing the appeal could not be taken within the prescribed period. 3. Mr. B.V. Wagh, learned Assistant Government Pleader, relies on the judgments of the Apex Court, in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Y.Moideen Kunhi (dead) by L.Rs. & others (2009 AIR SCW 4491) and in the case of G. Ramegowda, Major, etc. Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore (AIR 1988 SC 897). As against this, Mr. S.V. Mundhe, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, submits that there is no explanation in the application for such an inordinate delay. It is submitted that only by subsequent affidavit, the explanation is sought to be given. Relying on the judgment of Division Bench of this court, in the case of State of Maharashtra & others Vs. Vithu Kalya Govari and others (2008(6) Mh.L.J. 239), he submits that in an identical case, the court has refused to entertain the application for condonation of delay. 4. No doubt, that the parameters for condoning delay, when an application is filed by the State, would not change merely because the appeal is preferred by the State. However, as held by the Apex Court, in the cases of State of Karnataka Vs. Y.Moideen Kunhi (dead) by L.Rs. & others (supra) and in the case of G. Ramegowda, Major, etc. Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore (supra), while (3) condoning delay in the appeals preferred against the award passed in the land acquisition proceedings, it is also duty of the court to protect public interest. 5. In the present case, while examining merits of the matter, we find that the State has good case on merits. Though the land is an agricultural land, the compensation has been granted on the basis of per square plot-able area. Not only this, the sale instances, which are taken into consideration, are one which had taken place after issuance of Section 4 notification. 6. In the light of the fact, that huge money belonging to public exchequer is involved in the matter, we find that, in the larger public interest, the delay requires to be condoned. 7. The application is, therefore, allowed. Delay is condoned. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/ca5201