1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 11947, 11949, 11951, 11953 OF 2009 (for condonation of delay) WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 11948, 11950, 11952, 11954 OF 2009 (for stay) Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM : P.R. BORKAR.J. DATED : 01.04.2010 1. Heard A.G.P. Mrs. R.K. Ladda for the applicants. These are applications for condonation of delay of 532 days in filing appeals against group of land acquisition references, decided by a common judgment by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedpur, Camp at Udgir, on 19.03.2008. 2. It is stated that after 19.03.2008, the concerned A.G.P who appeared in the Reference Court, made recommendation to the Law and Judiciary Department for filing appeals, the Law and Judiciary Department processed the proposals and informed the office of the Government Pleader, High Court 2 Bench at Aurangabad on 30.01.2009 to file appeals. It is not explained why almost ten months were taken by the Law and Judiciary Department in processing the proposals sent by the A.G.P., when law requires that the appeals should be filed within 90 days. 3. It is further stated that immediately thereafter the appeal memos were drafted but certified copies of judgment & awards, difference chart, typed copies of judgment & order and Court fees were not accompanied with the proposals. There is no reason why the Law and Judiciary Department while sanctioning the proposals for filing appeals should not call for and enclose with the letter recommending filing the appeal, the sanction for amount of Court fees and the certified copies. There is no explanation why the A.G.P. from the Reference Court, who made proposals, has not obtained certified copies before making the proposals. There is also no explanation why certified copies were not applied immediately after 19.03.2008. It is stated in the application that the 3 certified copies of judgment and awards were received on 14.06.2009. Thus, there was delay of almost five months. 4. Typed copies of the judgment & awardss were received on 14.08.2009. In fact, the typed copies could have been prepared in the office of the Government Pleader and it was not necessary to call them from someone else. 5. Same is the case with difference chart. The foot-note below the appeal memos is the difference chart. It includes only the amount of compensation awarded by the Reference Court, the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and difference between the two. It is not explained why such small calculation required eight months. 6. I am not satisfied with the reasons regarding the delay that has occurred in this matter. 7. At every stage there was delay. I rely on the various 4 observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by L.Rs. V/s. Exe. Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project & Anr, 2008 (6) Bom.C.R. 513 and dismiss these applications. 8. In view of dismissal of applications for condonation of delay, the applications for stay do not survive and they are disposed of as such. 9. Issue Court Fee refund certificates as per rules. 10. Copy of this order may be sent to the Principal Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, so that if he thinks it proper, he may consider the lame reasons given for delay and may take remedial action. 11. Authenticated copy of this order signed by Shirastedar of this Court may be supplied to the learned A.G.P. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2010/APR10/ca11947.09