1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Civil Application (caf) No. 26 of 2011 (In FA St. No. 16804/10) V.I.D.C. ...Versus... Prashant Baliram Kawalkar & ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. A.B. Patil Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Kadu, AGP, for Respondents 2 and 3. … CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 22.06.2011. It has been repeatedly observed by this Court that the Government, Corporations like V.I.D.C. and M.I.D.C. etc. have formed a habit of not depositing the amount in the Court despite orders made by this Court in relation to the award of enhanced compensation made by the Reference Court. The only explanation appears to be, as contended by Mr.Patil, that the amount is released phasewise and that is why the payments are made/deposited in a phased manner in accordance with the seniority in respect of claim. In the opinion of this Court, this practice adopted by the Government, Corporations is not in consonance with the spirit of law of compulsory acquisition of 2 properties of the citizens. This is apart from the fact that even the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is not paid immediately. In this case, the Award was passed on 27.10.2009 and this appeal has been preferred with delay of 209 days. When it was decided to prefer appeal, the appellant ought to have simultaneously along with the appeal obtained the amount for depositing in this Court on its own. Though the Award is of the year 2009, the present appeal is at the stage of condonation of delay. This sort of conduct on the part of the acquiring body can no more be countenanced. This Court, therefore, makes it clear that henceforth if the amounts are not deposited within the time fixed by this Court, extension, if granted, would be subject to deposit of further amount of heavy costs on each and every extension. Let the copy of this order be forwarded to Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, for appropriate compliance. Time is extended by another six weeks subject to deposit of costs of Rs.5,000/- payable to the claimant. It is made clear that if the amount is not deposited within further extended time, there will be further order of costs. Heard learned counsel for the applicant on the point of condonation of delay. Though served none appears for respondent no.1. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant, I am 3 satisfied that there are good and sufficient reasons to condone the delay. Hence, delay is condoned. C.A.F. No.26/11 is allowed. C.A. disposed of. Copy of this order be given to learned AGP to act upon. Judge /TA/