1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9831 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 20453 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant Versus Maroti s/o Ranuji Surwase ...Respondent ..... Mr. D.R. Korde, AGP, for the applicant Mr. N.P. Bangar, advocate for respondent No.1 ..... CORAM: R.G. KETKAR, J. DATED: 5TH NOVEMBER, 2009 PER COURT:- 1 The applicants have taken out this application for condoning the delay of 778 days caused in filing the above appeal. 2. I have heard Shri Korde, learned AGP in support of this application and Shri Bangar, learned counsel for the first respondent. 3 The lands of the respondents were acquired by the applicants and award was made on 22.1.1996. Being aggrieved by the amount awarded under the award, respondent applied for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, claiming enhanced compensation. It is material to note that the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation @ 2 Rs.285/- per Are and the respondents claimed compensation @ Rs. 60,000/- per acre. The learned District Judge, who heard Reference ordered payment of compensation @ Rs.700/- per Are. The judgment was rendered on 23.3.2005. 4 Certified copy was ready for delivery on 18.6.2005 and the applicants collected the certified copy on the same day. Perusal of the assertions made in the application, indicates that proposal was sanctioned by the Law and Judiciary Department and forwarded to the office of the Government Pleader on 6.9.2005. Though the sanction was given on 6.9.2005, the appeal is filed on 29.10.2007. In para 3 of the application, it is contended that difference in the amount of court fee was received on 29.7.2006 and the typed copy of the judgment were prepared and submitted to the office of the Government Pleader on 7.8.2007. On this ground, it is submitted that delay caused was procedural delay. 5 Mr. Bangar, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent invited my attention to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Vithu Kalya Govari and others, reported in 2008 (6) Mh.L.J. 239 and submitted that in identical circumstances, the court declined to condone the delay. 5 After hearing learned counsel for the parties, following facts emerged;- The impugned judgment was passed on 23.3.2005. Certified copy 3 was ready and received by the applicants on 18.6.2005. The proposal was sanctioned on 6.9.2005 and still the appeal was presented on 29.10.2007. The delay occasioned after 6.9.2005 is explained on the ground that difference in the court fee amount was received on 29.7.2006 and the typed copy of the judgment was received on 7.8.2007 and the delay caused is because of procedural aspects. The appeal was eventually filed on 29.10.2007. Considering the assertions made in para 2 and 3 of the application, in my opinion, applicants have not explained delay occasioned after 6.9.2005. In fact, in my opinion, there is absolutely no explanation for filing appeal on 29.10.2007, since the proposal was sanctioned and forwarded to the office of the Government Pleader on 6.9.2005. Considering the assertions made in the application and in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Vithu Kalya Govari and others, (supra), no sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay. Hence, application deserves to be rejected and the same is accordingly rejected with no order as to costs.. (R.G.KETKAR, J.) rlj/