1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CA NO.12282/2009 IN CRA ST.NO.24975/2009. (Indirabai Gaikwad Vs. The State of Mah. & Anr.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 13th January, 2010. ... 1) Heard Mr.VV Ingale learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr.DV Tele, learned AGP for State. 2) The delay of 783 days, caused in lodging the appeal, is sought to be condoned. It is informed that the matter before the Reference Court was initially prosecuted by mother of the applicant herein, who expired, legal representatives were not brought on record, the matter was not attended and hence it was dismissed. 3) I find that this is not the sole ground for dismissal of the Reference. The Court also recorded that the claimant lost interest in the matter and did not even file an application. No steps were taken. The application, seeking condonation of delay of 783 days, is not sufficiently explained, the delay is not condoned, the application is rejected. Consequently, CRA dismissed. Necessary 2 court fees be refunded as per the Rules. 4) Liberty to the claimant, if under the law he is entitled to, to take benefit of Section 28(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/ca12282.09