1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1506/2008 In First Appeal St. No.838/2008 1. The State of Maharashtra, thr. Collector,Nagpur. 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, and Sub Divisional Officer, Katol,Nagpur. 3. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Works Division, Nagpur. .....APPLICANTS ...V E R S U S... 1. Deorao Atmaram Fiske, aged about 50 years. 2. Suresh Atmaram Fiske, aged about 35 years. Both agriculturist r/o Isapur, tq. Katol, dist. Nagpur. ....NON APPLICANTS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. S. B. Ahirkar, A. G. P. for applicants. Mr. S. V. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- S. A. BOBDE & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date of Reserving the order : 23 rd June, 2009 Date of Pronouncing the order: 10 th July, 2009 P. C. 1. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against judgment and order dated 07.11.2006 2 passed by Ad hoc District Judge-3, Nagpur in Land Acquisition Case No. 95/2002. The delay sought to be condoned by the applicants is to the extent of 308 days. 2. The application for condonation of delay is supported by an affidavit of the Sub Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer. It is the contention of the applicants that the impugned judgment was passed on 07.11.2006 and, thereafter, vide communication dated 23.01.2007 opinion for filing the appeal came to be sought by the applicants and it was received by letter dated 16.02.2007 from the District Government Pleader. The opinion was communicated on 24.04.2007 and sanction was granted by Law and Judiciary Department vide resolution dated 26.09.2007 and received by applicants on 05.10.2007 and ultimately, after the certified copy was received on 08.10.2007, the appeal was preferred on 29.12.2007 after supplying the necessary papers to the office of the Government Pleader. The non applicants have vehemently opposed the said application and stated that there is no sufficient cause shown by the applicants for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal. An affidavit-in-reply was also filed by the non applicants 3 dated 19.07.2008. An additional affidavit was also filed by non applicant nos. 1 and 2 in response to the affidavit dated 25.02.2009 filed by Jt. Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department, Nagpur. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that delay in filing the appeal was on account of administrative reasons in view of the moving of file from one department to the other for obtaining requisite sanction to prefer the appeal before this Court. It was further submitted by learned A.G.P. that the amount involved in the present appeal was more than Rs. One Crore and urged that the delay in preferring the appeal deserves to be condoned. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no justification shown by the applicants to condone the delay and there is no sufficient cause shown by the applicants as to why the delay was caused. It is further his contention that there is no explanation at all on the part of the applicants for the period from 24.04.2007 to 05.10.2007 when the applicants received intimation about opinion given by District Government Pleader and resolution dated 26.09.2007 was passed to grant sanction to file appeal 4 against the impugned judgment. It was further his contention that even thereafter there was delay which has not been satisfactorily explained by the applicants to condone the delay in filing the present appeal. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the non applicants relied upon judgment of this Court in State of Maharashtra and ors. ..vs.. Vithu Kalya Govari and ors.; 2008 (6) Mh. L. J. 239 . 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find that the applicants have unnecessarily delayed the filing of appeal on some explanations from time to time. The applicants are very well aware that they are supposed to prefer the appeals within the time prescribed under the Limitation Act, however, it appears that the concerned Departments delayed the issuing of sanctions due to inaction on their part. Having regard to the facts of the present case though, it appears that there was inaction on the part of the applicants during the period from 24.04.2007 to 26.09.2007, nevertheless, considering the fact that the amount involved is substantial and that there are no allegations on the part of the respondents that the said delay was deliberate or that such delay was on account 5 of some malafide intention, we find that the application for condonation of delay deserves to be granted subject to payment of substantial costs to the non applicants. The Judgment State of Maharashtra and ors. ..vs.. Vithu Kalya Govari and ors. (supra) relied by learned counsel for the non applicants is not applicable to the facts of the present case considering that in the said judgment the land involved was 2000 and 4000 sq.mtrs and that the applicants had not been paid enhanced compensation and there were no explanations at all given by State for a period of two years. In view of the above and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the application for condonation of delay is allowed subject to costs of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid by the applicants to the non applicants. The application stands disposed of,accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE kahale