FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4333 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.7738 OF 2008 _____________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ This application is for condonation of delay of 689 days caused in filing the appeal. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22nd February, 2006 passed in L.A.R. No.18 of 2004. The learned trial Judge has directed the applicants herein to pay compensation of Rs. 37,019/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of notification i.e. 29th October, 1998 for the first year and thereafter @ 15% per annum from 30th November, 1999 till realization. 2 In the application, it is averred that the Law & Judiciary Department sanctioned the proposal and forwarded the same to the office of the Government Pleader on 10th July, 2006. The applicants applied for certified copy on 9th October, 2007. The certified copies were ready for delivery on 12th October, 2007 and the same were collected by the applicants on 20th October, 2007. The certified copy of the judgment and order, typed copies thereof, difference chart were prepared and submitted to the office of the Government Pleader on 10th January, 2008 and the appeal was actually filed on 10th April, 2008. 3 Shri Korde, learned A.G.P. for the applicants in support of this application submitted that the delay occasioned is neither deliberate nor intentional and the same is caused because of the procedural aspects. On the other hand, Shri Gaddime, learned Counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra & others vs. Vithu Kalya Govari & others, 2008(5) Bom CR 323 and submitted that the delay is not properly explained and no sufficient cause is made out for condonation of the delay. 4 Since I was not satisfied with the explanation offered by the applicants in support of the application for condonation of delay, with the assistance of the learned Counsel, I have gone through the impugned judgment and order. Perusal of the impugned judgment and order indicates that the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “Act”) was issued on 29th October, 1998. The claimant submitted statement of claim under Section 9 of the Act and claimed compensation @ Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre for irrigated land and Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre for dry land. In paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment, the learned trial Judge considered the sale instances produced at Exh.17 and Exh.18. Exh.17 is the sale instance in respect of land admeasuring 20 R which was sold for Rs. 40,000/- and the sale instance at Exh.18 is in respect of land admeasuring 83 R which was sold for Rs.1,50,000/-. The sale deeds were produced by PW 1 Ramchandra, who stated that the land admeasuring 83 R, sold for Rs. 1,50,000/- as per sale deed at Exh.18, is situate at village Ashiv, taluka Ausa and is 4.5 Kms. Away from the acquired land. The learned trial Judge also considered 7/12 extract of the acquired land and came to the conclusion that the acquired land is having black cotton soil and was fertile land. Considering the quality, fertility and potentiality of the acquired land, he came to the conclusion that the reasonable market price of the acquired land on the date of notification was Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare i.e. Rs.40,000/- per acre. Thus, as against the claim of the claimant for compensation @ Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre for irrigated land and Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre for dry land, the learned trial Judge awarded compensation @ Rs. 40,000/- per acre. 5 In so far as the delay aspect is concerned, in my opinion, the applicants took more than one year even for applying for certified copy. Though the proposal was sanctioned by the Law & Judiciary Department on 10th July, 2006 and the certified copy was collected by the applicants on 20th October, 2007, the typed copies of the judgment and award, difference chart were prepared and submitted to the Government Pleader’s office on 10th January, 2008. Thus, here also there is delay of nearly 3 months. After receipt of these documents on 10th January, 2008, the appeal was actually filed on 10th April, 2008. Again, there is no explanation for the delay between 10th January, 2008 and 10th April, 2008. Considering the controversy raised in the appeal as also the material on record, I am satisfied that the learned trial Judge has not awarded exorbitant compensation. In view of this, in my opinion, this is not a fit case for condoning the delay. The delay is of 689 days and though the State Government is given some latitude in the matter of condonation of delay, the delay can be condoned only when the applicants make out sufficient cause. Since in my opinion, the applicants have not made out sufficient cause, the application deserves to be rejected. 6 Hence, the civil application is rejected with no order as to costs. (R.G. KETKAR, J.) 02.12.2009. PLK/*