1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5286/2003 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.1717/2003 (REJ. F.A. NO.94/2003) State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Buldhana and another ...Versus... Vishwanath s/o Kashiram Alias Tulshiram Gawali Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. [Shri M.A. Kadu, AGP for applicants] CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 07.07.2011. Heard. Having heard learned A.G.P. for the applicants and having gone through the contents of the application, I find that good and sufficient grounds exist for condoning the delay. Hence, delay is condoned. Civil Application is allowed. Civil Application stands disposed of. MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.932/2006 Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. First Appeal is restored to 2 file. Office objections are waived. This first appeal was filed by the State on 20.1.2003 and the Registrar of this Court refused the registration since office objections were not removed by the appellant – State so also the court fees was not paid. Therefore, the appellant-State filed applications on 30.7.2003 for condoning the delay and for restoration of the said rejected First appeal and since 2003 this matter is pending in this Court for want of service to the respondent on the applications for condonation of delay and for restoration of the first appeal only. It is not possible to allow such state of affairs to continue for number of years and to adjourn the matter mechanically. In view of above position, this Court finds it proper to decide the first appeal on merits. Misc. Civil Application stands disposed of. FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.1717/2003 (REJ. F.A. NO.94/2003) Not on board. Taken on board. Taken up for hearing on merits. 3 This first appeal was filed by the Sate against the judgment and award made by the reference Court, enhancing the compensation to Rs.50,000/- per hectare in place of Rs.26,000/- per hectare, awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The reference Court arrived at the said rate of compensation since in the connected cases, namely Land Acquisition Case Nos.62/1997, 67/1997 and 99/1997 decided on 10.3.1997 he had awarded the same rate. It is, thus, seen that the enhancement of compensation made by the reference Court is inconsonance with his earlier award made by him and there is no element of exorbitant increase while making the enhancement. I, therefore, do not find any error on the part of reference Court in enhancing the compensation. Hence, the following order. O R D E R First Appeal is rejected. No order as to costs. JUDGE ssw