1 C.A.No. 4886 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4888 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.8103 OF 2011 Special Land Acquisition Officer, Lower Irrigation Div., Jalgaon & anr. ..APPLICANTS VERSUS Balu Fakira Barhate ..RESPONDENT Mrs V.A. Shinde, A.G.P. for the applicants CORAM : MRS MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 4th October, 2011 PER COURT : By this application the applicants seek condonation of delay of 677 days in filing the present First Appeal. Learned A.G.P. submits that liberal approach is to be taken where the State is party. She places reliance on State of Karnataka vs. Moideen Kunhi (dead) by L.Rs. & ors., AIR 2009 S.C. 2577. A useful reference can be made to the earlier orders passed by this Court on 21.10.2008, 31.3.2009, 21.8.2008 and also order passed by this Court recently, i.e. on 23.9.2011. Earlier the Court has taken a view that the explanation given by the State is not 2 C.A.No. 4886 of 2011 sufficient and within the parameters of section 5 of the Limitation Act and at that time reliance was placed on the judgment of the Division Bench in State of Maharashtra vs. Vithu Kalya Gowari, reported in 2008 (4) ALL MR 856. 2. Learned A.G.P. while meeting the submissions argued that those matters were not decided on merits and while deciding the earlier applications case of State of Karnataka vs. Moideen & ors. (supra) was not pointed out. She, therefore, submits that this particular application for condonation of delay is to be allowed. 3. It is true that earlier, the judgments in the matters of State of Karnataka vs. Moideen and State of Maharashtra vs. Vithui Kalya Gowari (supra) were not pointed out. However, this Court has independently arrived at the conclusion that the explanation given by the State is not satisfactory and not within the parameters of section 5 of the Land acquisition Act and all applications in the group matters were not allowed. On the basis of the same, similar view was taken by this Court on 23.9.2011 in order to maintain the consistent view. Therefore, at this time the same view is taken and application for condonation of delay is dismissed. ( MRS MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) amj/ca4888.11