1 CA No.7136.10 & Ors. 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 1091. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7140 OF 2010 ,In FAST/9140/2010 ,With CA/7141/2010 ,In FAST/9140/2010 ,With CA/7142/2010 ,In FAST/9289/2010 ,With CA/7143/2010 ,In FAST/9289/2010 ,With CA/7144/2010 ,In FAST/9285/2010 ,With CA/7145/2010 ,In FAST/9285/2010 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VERSUS GOROBA SATVA LALE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.TS Lodhe, AGP for State. *** CORAM: R.M.BORDE ,J. DATE : 29 th JULY, 2011. PER COURT: 1) These are the applications presented by the State, seeking condonation of delay of about 2922 days occurred in presenting the appeals. The Reference Court delivered the judgment and Award on 21.12.2001. The proposal for presenting the appeals was stated to have been received by the office of the Government Pleader on 27.9.2002. Certified copies of the Judgment and Award were said to have been received only on 7.11.2008 and the appeals were presented in the year 2010. Although the Judgment and Award is passed by the Reference Court in the year 2001, the State Government took almost about nine years for presentation of the appeals. There is no justifiable reasons stated in the application, explaining such huge and exorbitant delay of about 2922 days. Apart from this aspect, the appeals presented by the State Government do not call for any interference, considering the merits of the matters. The Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation in respect 2 CA No.7136.10 & Ors. of the acquired agricultural land @ Rs.160/- per R. and the enhancement in the amount of compensation made by the Reference Court is @ Rs.375/- per R. It is to be noted that small fragments of agricultural lands have been acquired, for which, quite a meagre amount has been directed to be paid by the reference court to the claimants, thereby entitling them to receive palty sums. Even considering the merits of the contentions, the appeals are not liable to be interfered. 2) For the reasons recorded above, the applications presented by the State, seeking condonation of delay do not deserve favourble consideration. The applications, therefore, stand rejected. 3) In view of rejection of the applications seeking condonation of delay, the appeals presented by the State, shall not be registered. 4) The State Government is entitled to claim for refund of court fees as per the Rules. (R.M.BORDE,J.) bdv/