{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.541 OF 2005 WITH FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.19063 OF 2004 The Stat of Maharashtra APPLICANTS VERSUS Waghambar Vithoba Ronge RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.542 OF 2005 WITH FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.19096 OF 2004 The Stat of Maharashtra APPLICANTS VERSUS Jeevan Shivdas Ronge RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.543 OF 2005 WITH FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.19066 OF 2004 The Stat of Maharashtra APPLICANTS VERSUS Khandu Keshav Ronge RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.544 OF 2005 WITH FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.19068 OF 2004 The Stat of Maharashtra APPLICANTS VERSUS Balbhim Panda Ronge RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.545 OF 2005 WITH FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.19056 OF 2004 {2} The Stat of Maharashtra APPLICANTS VERSUS Kishan Laxman Bochare RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.547 OF 2005 WITH FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.19061 OF 2004 The Stat of Maharashtra APPLICANTS VERSUS Shankar Narayan Ronge RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.549 OF 2005 WITH FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.19072 OF 2004 The Stat of Maharashtra APPLICANTS VERSUS Harishchandra Bhanudas Patil RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.551 OF 2005 WITH FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.19043 OF 2004 The Stat of Maharashtra APPLICANTS VERSUS Bhagwan Sadashiv Surwase RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.552 OF 2005 WITH FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.19045 OF 2004 The Stat of Maharashtra APPLICANTS VERSUS Bhivrao Tatya Bansode RESPONDENTS WITH {3} CIVIL APPLICATION NO.553 OF 2005 WITH FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.19047 OF 2004 The Stat of Maharashtra APPLICANTS VERSUS Ambadas Ganpati Sakhare & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.V.B.Ghatge, AGP for applicant State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE : 5th September 2009 PER COURT: 1. By these applications, the applicant / State has prayed for condonation of 2220 days delay in preferring first appeals challenging the judgment and award passed by Reference Court. 2. It is contended by learned AGP that due to administrative difficulties the delay has been caused. However, considering the ratio laid down by Division Bench of this Court in “State of Maharashtra V/s Vithu Kalya Govari” reported in 2008 (6) Mh.L.J. 239 that the application for condonation of delay must disclose sufficient and satisfactory reasons and mere official hassles cannot be said to be a ground for condonation of delay, the delay cannot be condoned. 3. Apart from the above, the lands which are acquired are small fragments and the individual respondents have received a very meager compensation for the same. The respondents have fought for years together for such meager compensation. If due to inaction on the {4} part of the State such enormous delay is caused, which is not even sufficiently and satisfactorily explained, the holders of small fragments of lands cannot be dragged into litigation once again. In the result, I do not find that the grounds shown for condonation of delay are sufficient and satisfactory. Therefore, the civil applications are dismissed with no order as to costs. 4. As civil applications for condonation of delay are dismissed, the accompanying first appeals do not survive and hence stand rejected. The applicant is entitled for refund of court fees as per rules. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/ca541-05