1 Civil Application No.6475 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6475 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.11201 OF 2009 The Special land Acquisition Officer No.1, Dhule APPLICANT VERSUS Shantabai Manga Mali RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6476 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.11112 OF 2009 The Special land Acquisition Officer No.1, Dhule APPLICANT VERSUS Saraswati W/o.Bhika Patil, through legal heirs RESPONDENTS Mr.D.V.Tele, learned A.G.P. For applicant/State (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 25/02/2011 PER COURT : 2 Civil Application No.6475 of 2009 1. As both these civil applications are preferred by State to condone the delay of 3000 days arises against the common judgment and order, hence these civil applications are require to be disposed of by way of common order. 2. Heard learned A.G.P. According to him, the delay was caused in filing the first appeals against the judgment and award passed in Land Acquisition Reference No.141/95 dated 22/12/2000 by Joint Civil Judge, S.D. Dhule, in which proposal was forwarded by the Office of learned A.G.P. to the Law and Judiciary Department on 02/03/2002. Incomplete proposal was received in the office of A.G.P. on 04/03/2002. It is alleged that thereafter the correspondence was done by the Office of A.G.P. with the concerned Department since March 2002 till June 2005. But the necessary documents were supplied to the Office of A.G.P. on 17/01/2007 and on 11/06/2007, requisite court fees was sent alongwith the proposed appeals and the first appeals were presented before this Court in the month of June 2009. It is contended on behalf of learned A.G.P. that the delay is not deliberate, but caused because of official hassles As the documents were not received from the concerned Department in time, the delay was caused in preferring the appeals. So far as the delay of last 2 years from the month of June 2007 to June 2009 is concerned, there is no whisper at all in both these applications about this delay 3. A Division Bench of this Court in the matter of State of 3 Civil Application No.6475 of 2009 Maharashtra and others versus Vithu Kalya Govari and others, reported in 2008(6) Mh.L.J. 239 has observed that explanation of ‘official hassles’ can not be regarded as sufficient ground for condonation of delay. This Court has also held that the explanation must be satisfactory. 4. In view of the observations of the Division Bench in the judgment referred supra, it is clear that the ‘official hassles’ is not a good ground to condone the delay. In the premise, as the delay is not explained satisfactorily, both the applications, sans merits, stand rejected. Court fees, if any paid by the applicant/State, be refunded as per rules. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/FEB. 2011/ca6043-09