1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1713 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 2128 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant Versus Raosaheb s/o Kisan Kulkarni ...Respondent WITH C.A. NO.1714 OF 2009 IN F.A. (ST.) NO.2233 OF 2009 C.A. NO.1715 OF 2009 IN F.A. (ST.) NO.2238 OF 2009 C.A. NO.1716 OF 2009 IN F.A. (ST.) NO.2240 OF 2009 C.A. NO.1717 OF 2009 IN F.A. (ST.) NO.2248 OF 2009 C.A. NO.1718 OF 2009 IN F.A. (ST.) NO.2253 OF 2009 C.A. NO.1719 OF 2009 IN F.A. (ST.) NO.2260 OF 2009 ..... Mr. N.N. Jadhav, A.G.P. advocate for the applicant Mr. S.K. Naikwade, advocate for respondents ..... CORAM: R.G. KETKAR, J. DATED: 12TH NOVEMBER, 2009 PER COURT:- 1 These applications are taken out for condoning the delay of 772 days caused in filing first appeals. In the applications, it is contended that the References under Land Acquisition Act were decided on 31.1.2006. Application for certified copies was made on 1.2.2006. The certified copies were collected on 22.9.2006. The Law and Judiciary 2 department after scrutiny of the proposal, sanctioned the proposal and forwarded the same to the office of the Government Pleader on 10.1.2007. The said proposal was received by the office of the Government Pleader on 12.1.2007. Demand draft of the court fees was collected from the acquiring body and deposited in the office of the Government Pleader on 28.6.2007. It is further contended in para 4 of the application that typed copy of the judgment and award were prepared and submitted to the office of the Government Pleader on 15.4.2008 and the appeals were filed on 28.1.2009. Considering the averments made in the applications, in my opinion, in the first place, the applicant has not explained delay from 12.1.2007 to 15.4.2008. At any rate there is also no explanation from 15.4.2008 till 28.1.2009, when the appeals were filed. In these circumstances, no sufficient cause is made out. On the contrary, this clearly shows the lack of due diligence on the part of the Officer of the concerned department. 2. In the result, civil applications stand rejected with no order as to costs. (R.G.KETKAR, J.) rlj/