1 Civil Application No.8394 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8394 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.15990 OF 2009 The State of Maharahstra APPLICANT VERSUS Digambar Tukaram Jawale and others RESPONDENTS Mrs.R.K.Ladda, learned counsel for the applicant. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 25/02/2011 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the State has approached this Court for condonation of delay of 897 days in preferring first appeal challenging the judgment and award passed in Land Acquisition Reference No.254/2001 by the learned Joint Civil Judge, S.D. Jalgaon dated 12/10/2006. 2. Office of learned A.G.P. has forwarded the proposal to the Law and Judiciary Department, seeking sanction to file first appeal against the said judgment and award. The proposal was received in the office of learned A.G.P. on 04/06/2007. As per the contention in the application, the appeal was drafted on 06/06/2007, but as 2 Civil Application No.8394 of 2009 requisite documents which are necessary to be annexed with the appeal, were not received in the office of learned A.G.P. till the month of April 2009, neither the requisite court fees required to be paid while presenting the first appeal, was received till June 2009, hence after receipt of these requisite documents and court fees, the appeal was presented in this Court in the month of July 2009. It is urged that so far as delay caused in filing the appeal is concerned, it is because of the administrative difficulties and for the reasons beyond the control of the office of the applicant. Hence it is contended that the delay is not intentional and to be condoned. 3. A Division Bench of this Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra and others versus Vithu Kalya Govari and others, reported in 2008(6) Mh.L.J. 239 has observed that explanation of ‘official hassles’ can not be regarded as sufficient ground for condonation of delay. This Court has also held that the explanation must be satisfactory. 4. During the course of submissions across the bar, learned A.G.P. for State placed reliance on the observations of the Apex Court in the matter of State of Karnataka verus Y.Moideen Kunhi, through legal heirs, reported in 2009 AIR SCW 4491. On perusal of the observations of the Apex Court, particularly in para no.18 to 20, it is to be noted that the observations of the Apex Court in the said appeal are based on the facts and circumstances of that particular case and not as a ratio as such. In the premise, it will not 3 Civil Application No.8394 of 2009 be applicable to this application filed by the State. 5. Bearing in mind the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of State Versus Vithu (cited supra), the official hassles and the administrative difficulties causing delay in preferring the appeal are not the grounds justifiable and acceptable to condone the delay. In view of this, no merits in the application, hence dismissed. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/FEB. 2011/ca8394-09