{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.966 OF 2005 WITH FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.31811 OF 2004 The State of Maharashtra and Another APPLICANTS VERSUS Vinayak Baburao Korde & Others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.N.N.Jadhav, AGP for applicants Mr.D.R.Jaybhar, Advocate for respondents ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE : 5th September 2009 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicants have prayed for condonation of 60 days delay caused in preferring first appeal against judgment and award passed by the Reference Court. 2. It is contended by the applicants that proposal for filing first appeal was received in the office of Government Pleader on 10.09.2004 and appeal came to be drafted in November 2004. Learned AGP has contended that due to administrative difficulties the delay has been caused. Division Bench of this Court in the matter of “State of Maharashtra V/s Vithu Kalya Govari” reported in 2008 (6) Mh.L.J. 239 has observed that the application for condonation of delay must {2} disclose sufficient and satisfactory reasons. Officials hassles are not sufficient ground for condonation of delay. Obviously, the delay cannot be condoned. 3. Apart from above, the applicants have also no case on merits. The Special Land Acquisition Officer has granted compensation @ Rs.100/- per R whereas the reference court has granted compensation @ Rs.500/- per R that too on the basis of sale instances brought on record before the reference court wherein the lands were sold @ Rs.1000/- per R at the relevant time. Considering these aspects, it cannot be said that the reference court has granted exorbitant compensation. Thus, the applicants have no case even on merits. 4. In the result, there is no merit in the civil application and the same is dismissed for not disclosing sufficient and satisfactory grounds to condone the delay. 5. As the civil application for condonation of delay is dismissed, the accompanying first appeal does not survive and hence rejected. The applicants are entitled for refund of court fees as per rules. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/ca966-05