FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2353 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 2657 OF 2008 ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ This application is for condonation of delay of 599 days, caused in filing the appeal. The applicants have preferred first appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 9.4.2007, passed by the learned C.J.S.D. Ahmedpur, Camp at Udgir, in L.A.R. No. 222 of 2003. Heard Shri. Jadhav, learned A.G.P. in support of this application and Shri Adgaonkar, learned counsel for respondent-claimant. In the application, it is averred that the judgment and award was passed in the month of April, 2007. The Law and Judiciary department forwarded the proposal to the office of the Government Pleader on 3.12.2007 for filing appeal. The proposal, however, did not accompany the certified copy of the judgment and order, typed copies of the judgment and order, different chart, court fees etc. The learned A.G.P. addressed a letter dated 8.1.2008 requesting the concerned Officer to forward the said documents. In response thereto, the documents were received on 4.12.2008 and the appeal was actually filed on 3.2.2009. Shri Adgaonkar, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no explanation for the period from 8.1.2008 to 4.12.2008 and though the documents were received on 4.12.2008, again there is no explanation for the period from 4.12.2008 to 3.2.2009, when the appeal was actually filed. After hearing learned A.G.P. in support of this application and the learned counsel for the respondent, since I am not satisfied with the reasons given in support of this application, with the assistance of the learned counsel I have gone through the impugned judgment and order. Perusal of the judgment and order, indicates that the respondent claimant claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare i.e. Rs.2,500/- per R, as against this the S.L.A.O. awarded Rs.14,000/- per Hectare i.e. Rs.350/- per R. Against this decision, the respondents preferred reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the Reference court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 32,000/- per hectare i.e. Rs.800/- per R. The notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on 4.9.1997 for acquiring 60 R land of the respondent from the land survey No. 92 of village Gutti, Tq. Jalkot, for the purpose of construction of Percolation tank No.4 (Additional). In support of the claim, the respondent examined himself at Exh.17 and also examined vendor Motiram Chimana Rathod, of village Gutti, as per Exh. 15. He also produced certified copy of the sale deed in respect of land survey No.77. On 23.12.1996, said Motiram Rathod sold the land from survey No.77 to the extent of northern side 50 R for consideration of Rs.50,000/- i.e. @ Rs.40,000/- per acre. As per the deposition of respondent- claimant, the acquired land is situated at the distance of 2 to 3 fields away from survey No. 77. The quality/fertility and nature of the soil of the acquired land and that of survey No.77 is similar. The respondent also produced 7x12 extract as per Exh.13 to show that he was taking Hybrid, Toor, Mug, Udid etc. crops in the Kharip season from the acquired land. It has further come on record that village Gutti is at a distance of 5 to 7 kms away from Taluka place Jalkot and 15 to 17 kms from Udgir city. All facilities are available to village Guitti, such as post office, telephone office, electricity facility, education facility, water supply facility, Gram Panchayat office, society office etc. Considering these materials on record, the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the market value of the acquired land on the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 4.9.1997, was Rs.32,000/- per acre i.e. Rs.800/- per Are. I am satisfied from the material on record that the learned District Judge has not awarded exorbitant compensation. Coupled with this, in my opinion, the applicant has also not properly explained the delay occasioned in filing the appeal. Hence, civil application is rejected. In view of dismissal of civil application, First Appeal also stands dismissed. In the circumstances, civil application No.2354 of 2009, for stay, does not survive and the same stands dismissed. (R.G. KETKAR, J.) Date:05.12.2009. rlj/