FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1664 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.2093 OF 2009 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1665 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.2221 OF 2009 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1666 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.2219 OF 2009 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1667 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.2212 OF 2009 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1668 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.2215 OF 2009 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1669 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.2210 OF 2009 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1670 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.2208 OF 2009 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1671 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.2205 OF 2009 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1672 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.2203 OF 2009 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1673 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.2201 OF 2009 ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ Heard Shri Korde, learned A.G.P. for applicants and Shri Patil, learned Counsel for respondents. 2 The applicants have filed the first appeals challenging the judgment and award dated 31st August, 2006 passed by the learned Joint C.J.S.D., Ahmedpur, District Latur in LAR No.867 to 875/2002, and LAR No.22/2004. The applicants have taken out these applications for condonation of delay of 792 days caused in filing the appeals. 3 In the applications, it is averred that the impugned judgment and award was passed on 31st August, 2006. The Law & Judiciary Department sanctioned the proposal and forwarded the same to office of the Government Pleader on 11th January, 2007. The application for certified copy was made on 12th March, 2007. The certified copies were ready for delivery on on 23rd March, 2007 and were collected by the applicants on 31st March, 2007. The certified copies of the judgment and award, typed copies thereof and the difference chart were prepared and submitted to the office of the Government Pleader on 4th June, 2007. Appeals were eventually filed on 28th January, 2009. From perusal of the application, it is evident that there is no explanation offered for the period from 4th June, 2007 to 28th January, 2009. However, in order to ensure that meritorious case is not dismissed at the threshold, with the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the impugned judgment and award. 4 The lands of the respondents – claimants were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “Act”). Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 26th August, 1999 for acquisition of lands for public purpose of percolation tank No.3 at Nagzari, taluka Ahmedpur. Respondents – claimants claimed compensation @ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. However, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation @ Rs.35,000/- per Hectare. The respondents filed references under Section 18 of the Act. In support of the references, the respondents submitted that facilities such as electricity, Gram Panchayat, Water Supply Scheme, education upto 7th standard, S.T. Buses, Bazar Peth are available in village Nagzari. The population of the village is near about 1200 and it is 22 kms. away from taluka place. The respondents relied upon the sale instances and in particular, sale instance of village Ujana wherein the land admeasuring 40 R was sold for consideration of Rs.50,000/-. This aspect is considered by the learned trial Judge in paragraphs 8 and 10 of the impugned judgment and award. Since the acquired land is from village Nagzari, the learned trial Judge awarded compensation @ Rs.42,000/- per acre that’s to say, Rs.1050 per R. I do not find that the learned trial Judge has awarded exorbitant compensation. 5 In view of the fact that the applicants have not explained the delay from 4th June, 2007 till filing of the appeal on 28th January, 2009 coupled with the fact that on merits the learned trial Judge has not awarded exorbitant compensation, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case to condone the delay. 6 Hence, Civil Applications are rejected. Consequently, first appeals stand dismissed. (R.G. KETKAR, J.) 09.12.2009. PLK/*