{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7642 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.16430 OF 2007 Executive Engineer Lower Terna Project, Latur APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Another RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7632 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.16445 OF 2007 Executive Engineer Lower Terna Project, Latur APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Another RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7636 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.16271 OF 2007 Executive Engineer Lower Terna Project, Latur APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Another RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7646 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.16413 OF 2007 Executive Engineer Lower Terna Project, Latur APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Another RESPONDENTS {2} WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7648 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.16441 OF 2007 Executive Engineer Lower Terna Project, Latur APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Another RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7652 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.16423 OF 2007 Executive Engineer Lower Terna Project, Latur APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Another RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7654 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.16419 OF 2007 Executive Engineer Lower Terna Project, Latur APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Another RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7656 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.16416 OF 2007 Executive Engineer Lower Terna Project, Latur APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Another RESPONDENTS {3} ....... Mr.S.S.Thombre, Advocate for applicant Mr. D.V.Tele, AGP for respondent State Mr. B.K.Pawar, Advocate for respondent No.2 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 27th August 2010 PER COURT: 1. These are the applications filed by the applicant seeking condonation of delay of 137 days caused in preferring appeals challenging the judgment and award passed by the District Judge-1, Nilanga in Land Reference Cases, which were preferred by the respective respondents. 2. It appears that Rule was issued in all these applications on 11.06.2008. Today, when the applications came up for final hearing, heard learned counsel for the respective parties. As these applications raise common issue, the same are being disposed of by this common order. 3. According to the applicant, the impugned judgment was rendered on 06.01.2007, certified copy was applied for on 16.01.2007, which was ready for delivery on 29.01.2007 and was collected on the same day. Thereafter a proposal was forwarded to the Executive Engineer, Lower Terna Project, seeking approval for filing appeals against the said award. Thereafter, approval was {4} granted and then the present appeals came to be filed on 30.08.2007 along with these applications, seeking condonation of delay. 4. Perusal of the applications, does not disclose anywhere or it is nowhere explained as to why the appeals were not preferred within the period of limitation though approval for filing appeal was granted on 21.06.2007. 5. Though the applications are not resisted forcefully on behalf of the respondents, yet considering the observations of the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of “State of Maharashtra and others V/s Vithu Kalya Govari & others” reported in 2008 (6) Mh.L.J. 239 that explanation of ‘procedural hassles’ cannot be regarded as sufficient ground for condonation of delay so also it is held the explanation must be satisfactory, in my opinion the delay does not deserve to be condoned. 06. Apart from the merits in the applications seeking condonation of delay, it is brought to my notice that the compensation enhanced by the lower Court is very meager, considering the area of land acquired. I agree with the submissions of learned counsel for the respondents / original claimants that the compensation is not enhanced exorbitantly. 7. In view of the observations of this Court in the {5} judgment referred supra, it is clear that the official hassles is no more a good ground seeking condonation of delay coupled with the fact that the amount of compensation enhanced by the lower court is very meager, taking into consideration the area of land acquired. In the premise, though if the delay is condoned, yet on merit, the appeals would not be admitted. In the result, as the delay is not explained satisfactorily, all the applications, sans merits, stand rejected. Rule stands discharged. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/ca7395-07 {6} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7643 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.16430 OF 2007 Executive Engineer Lower Terna Project, Latur APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Another RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7633 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.16445 OF 2007 Executive Engineer Lower Terna Project, Latur APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Another RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7637 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.16271 OF 2007 Executive Engineer Lower Terna Project, Latur APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Another RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7647 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.16413 OF 2007 Executive Engineer Lower Terna Project, Latur APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Another RESPONDENTS {7} WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7649 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.16441 OF 2007 Executive Engineer Lower Terna Project, Latur APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Another RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7653 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.16423 OF 2007 Executive Engineer Lower Terna Project, Latur APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Another RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7655 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.16419 OF 2007 Executive Engineer Lower Terna Project, Latur APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Another RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7657 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.16416 OF 2007 Executive Engineer Lower Terna Project, Latur APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Another RESPONDENTS {8} ....... Mr.S.S.Thombre, Advocate for applicant Mr. D.V.Tele, AGP for respondent State Mr. B.K.Pawar, Advocate for respondent No.2 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 27th August 2010 PER COURT: 1. By these applications, the applicant has prayed to stay the execution of the impugned Award dated 06.01.2007 passed by District Judge-1, Nilanga in Land Reference Cases No.46/2001, 49/2001, 42/2001, 48/2001, 44/2001, 52/2001, 45/2001 and 43/2001. By a separate order, the applications filed by the applicant seeking condonation of delay caused in preferring the appeals, have been dismissed. In the premise, the present applications, seeking stay, do not survive and therefore, disposed of accordingly. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/ca7395-07