{1} ca735807.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7358 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.15456 OF 2007 1 The State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Latur 2 The Executive Engineer, Local Sector Division, Latur. Applicants Versus 1 Digambar Kerbasappa Swami, age: 50 years, Occ: Agri Both R/o Mahadeowadi, Tq.Ausa, District Latur. Respondents Mr.P.P.More, A.G.P. for the applicants. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7357 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.15458 OF 2007 1 The State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Latur 2 The Executive Engineer, Local Sector Division, Latur. Applicants Versus Madhukar Gopal Matole, age: 30 years, Occ: Agri, R/o Mahadeowadi, Tq.Ausa, Dist.Latur. Respondent {2} ca735807.odt Mr.P.P.More, A.G.P. for the applicants. Mr.H.V.Patil (Talegaonkar), advocate for Respondent. CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 30th August, 2011 P.C.: 1 These are applications presented by the State seeking condonation of delay of 478 days occurred in presenting respective appeals. 2 On perusal of the judgment passed by the Reference Court, it is found that in all three Reference Applications were decided by the Reference Court and common award was passed on 04.01.2006. These are the matters arising out of L.A.R.Nos. 964/1999 and 963/1999. So far as another appeal presented by the State challenging the award passed by the Reference Court in L.A.R. No.966/1999 is concerned, this Court, by order dated 23.04.2010, refused to condone the delay and rejected the application tendered by the State Government. Thus, in view of rejection of application seeking condonation of delay, being Civil Application No.7356/2007, the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court in L.A.R. No.964/1999, stands confirmed. 3 In view of confirmation of award as against claimant Digambar Ghodbole in L.A.R. No.966/1999, instant appeals {3} ca735807.odt presented by State against Digambar Kerbasappa Swami (L.A.R.No. 964/1999) and Madhukar Gopal Matole (L.A.R. No.963/1999), raising exception to the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, do not require any further consideration. The applications seeking condonation of delay, presented by the State in these two appeals, stand rejected. Consequently, the appeals be not registered. The appellant-State would be entitled to claim refund of court fees in accordance with Rules. R.M.BORDE JUDGE adb/ca735807