Ast 1 caf3740.09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3740 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.21991 OF 2009 Shri Tulshiram Ganpat Kamble. ... Applicant. Vs. Smt.Sumati R. Kamble since deceased through L.Rs. & Anr. ... Respondents. -------------- Mr. Rahul Thakur for Applicant. Mr.R.M.Nakhawa i/b. Mr.Vasant Dhawan for Respondent Nos. 1/1 to 1/4 -------------- CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR, J. DATE : 26 th MARCH, 2010. P.C. 1. This is an application for condonation of delay. The Applicant is original Respondent No.1 in the proceedings initiated under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Reference No. 109 of 1992 was decided by the impugned Judgment dated 23 rd September, Ast 2 caf3740.09.sxw 1997. The direction was issued for disbursement of the compensation amount to the heirs of deceased Sumatibai Ramchandra Kamble. According to the applicant, he had no knowledge about such decision rendered by the Reference Court. He would submit that he is entitled to receive entire compensation being the only legal heir of the deceased land owner. He further submits that he is poor and was unable to effectively resist the claims put forth by others. He contended that original Opponent No.2 i.e. Sumatibai Kamble was not the legal heir of deceased Tulsabai i.e. previous owner of the land in question. 2. The Applicant did not initiate any succession proceedings. The applicant is unable to state whether he had appeared in the proceedings for the purpose of giving his evidence on the question of his heirship. The impugned Judgment does not show that the Appellant had preferred any second appeal against the finding of the Revenue Tribunal in the proceedings of Mutation Entry No.2530. Ast 3 caf3740.09.sxw 3. The vague plea that the applicant is poor and had no knowledge about the impugned Judgment cannot be regarded as sufficient explanation for the delay. This Court in “Kamalbai w/o Narasaiyya Shrimal & Anr. Vs. Ganpat s/o Vithalrao Gavare” 2007(1) Mh.L.J.807, has taken view that the delay cannot be condoned only because it is unintentional nor plea of poverty is ground for condonation of delay. 4. In the present case, the delay is excessive and the explanation is rather unacceptable in view of the avernments in the application. Consequently, the Application is dismissed. [ V.R.KINGAONKAR, J ]