1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8051 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 12613 OF 2009 A. Dhanabai W/o Laxman Marathe, (Deceased) Through L.R.s. A-1 Fakira S/o Laxman Marathe, Since Deceased Through L.Rs. A-1/1 Babulal Fakira Marathe, Age : 45 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Brahmanpuri, Tq. Shahda, District Nandurbar. 1-1/2 Sau Sundarbai W/o Subhash Marathe, Age : 50 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Saukheda, Tq. Shahada, District Nandurbar. A-2. Chhagan S/o Laxman Marathe, Age : 65 Years, Occu. : Agril., A-3. Magan S/o Laxman Marathe, Age : 62 Years, Occu. : Agril., A-4. Tukaam S/o Laxman Marathe, Age : 60 Years, Occu. : Agril., All R/o Brahamanpuri, Tq. Shahada, District Nandurbar. B. Sumanbai W/o Bhanudas Marathe, Age : 55 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o As above. .. .. Applicants/Appellants 2 Versus 1. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Medium Project, Dhule. 2. The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Dhule (Now Dist. Nandurbar) .. .. Respondents Shri R. C. Patil, Advocate for the Applicants/Appellants. Shri K. G. Patil, A. G. P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI, AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 12TH AUGUST, 2009. ORAL ORDER [Per N. D. Deshpande, J. ] : 1. Heard Shri R. C. Patil, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri K. G. Patil learned A.G.P. for the respondents/State. 2. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing first appeal preferred by the applicants/appellants against the judgment and award dated 30.01.2003 passed by learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Shahada in land acquisition Reference No. 34/2000. The applicants are the legal heirs of one Laxman Marathe, who was the original claimant and whose claim for enhanced compensation was partly allowed. 3. The main contention of the applicants is that, they had 3 prepared a cross objection in an appeal which was filed by the State/respondents and could not prosecute it further, for the said appeal of the respondents/State was not admitted earlier by this Court. It was further submitted that, the delay occasioned is not intentional and deliberate one and urged that, they be heard on merits in this appeal. 4. In the light of above stated facts, we have considered the request for condonation of delay and on this ground application deserves to be allowed. 5. Hence the Civil Application for condonation of delay stands allowed and accordingly disposed of. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ B. R. GAVAI, J.] bsb/August 09