C.A.No.6178/2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6178 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.8557 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra through Special Land Acquisition Officer, Lawer Irrigation Division, Jalgaon and anr. ..Applicants Versus Nosherji Jahangir Parashi @ Adjania ..Respondent Mr S.N.Kendre, AGP for applicants Mr A.B.Kale, Advocate for respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6180 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.8551 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra through Special Land Acquisition Officer, Lawer Irrigation Division, Jalgaon and anr. ..Applicants Versus Aban Jal Adjania through GPA Nosherji Jahangir Parshi ..Respondent Mr S.N.Kendre, AGP for applicants Mr A.B.Kale, Advocate for respondent - WITH - CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6182 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO. 8554 OF 2011 C.A.No.6178/2011 2 The State of Maharashtra through Special Land Acquisition Officer, Lawer Irrigation Division, Jalgaon and anr. ..Applicants Versus Saam Aspi Parshi, through GPA Nosherji Jahangir Parshi ..Respondent Mr S.N.Kendre, AGP for applicants Mr A.B.Kale, Advocate for respondent CORAM : MRS MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 23rd September, 2011 PER COURT These civil applications for condonation of delay of 465 days are filed by the State. Learned Assistant Government Pleader states that delay of 291 is caused in filing the appeals on account of procedural and administrative grounds. He placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Moinuddin Kunhi, reported in AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 2577. 2. Learned Counsel for the respondents opposes applications for condonation of delay. He submits that for the project of construction of flyover on railway at Hekari, Taluka Bhusawal, District Jalgaon, land was acquired. Against the said acquisition, the concerned land owners filed references challenging the amount of the award fixed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, against which the Government has filed these C.A.No.6178/2011 3 appeals. However, in all these group matters delay of 465 days is caused. Learned Counsel points out that earlier, while disposing of the civil applications for condonation of delay in other connected appeals, this Court has taken a view that the explanation given by the State is not satisfactory and not within the parameters of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Reliance is placed on State of Maharashtra Vs. Vithu Kalya Gowari, reported in 2008 (4) ALL MR 856 and all those applications were dismissed. 3. The orders passed by this Court on 21.10.2008 in Civil Application No.4380 of 2008, where delay was of 621 days, order dated 21.10.2008 in Civil Application No.4366 of 2008 where delay was of 701 days, order dated 31.3.2009 in Civil Application No.4385 of 2008, where delay was of 528 days and order dated 21.8.2008 in Civil Application No.4360 of 2008, the delay of 532 days was not condoned. The present matters are connected appeals and the civil applications are of the similar nature, therefore, I take the same view as it is consistent with the previous orders passed by this Court. Applications for condonation of delay are, therefore, dismissed for the reasons mentioned above. ( MRS MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. ) (vvr/6178.11ca)