1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4980 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.30819 OF 2009 Pune Municipal Corporation .... Applicant Vs. Smt. Jyoti Subhash Bhansale .... Respondents & Ors. Mr.Rajdeep S. Khadapkar, Advocate for applicant. Mrs. S.V. Sonawane, AGP for respondents 2 to 4. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 3rd May 2010 P.C. 1. This Civil Application is taken out for condonation of delay of 697 days in filing the First Appeal. Pune Municipal Corporation, the applicant herein desires to challenge the judgment and order dated 22nd October 2007 passed by District Court, Pune in Land Reference No.152 of 2004 enhancing the compensation awarded by Special Land Acquisition Officer to respondent no.1. 2. The explanation for the inordinate delay offered at paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Civil Application is that after the judgment and order passed on 22nd October 2007, there was delay on the part of the learned Advocate appearing for the applicant before the District Court in giving his opinion recommending filing of the First Appeal. The 2 opinion was given on 29th February 2008. However, no immediate steps were taken to file the appeal, because office of Land Acquisition Department had shifted from one place to another, because of which the relevant file inadvertently remained to be processed. The applicant woke up only on 27th July 2009, when the execution proceedings came to be served upon it. Thereafter it obtained sanction from the concerned authority for filing of appeal on 4th September 2009,then applied for certified copy of the impugned judgment and order on 11th September 2009 and lodged the appeal on 17th December 2009. 3. Mr. Khadapkar, the learned counsel for the applicant strongly urges for condonation of delay submitting that the applicant being an impersonal machinery should not be treated on par with an individual. There is bound to be some delay caused by the bureaucratic methodology in the functioning of the applicant and hence the Court should take liberal approach in interpretation of the expression “sufficient cause” for condonation of the delay. In this connection, he relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another vs. Mst.Katiji and others, reported in (1987)2 Supreme Court Cases 107, where the delay for consideration of the Apex Court for condonation was of four days. 4. In the instant case, it is obvious from the application 3 that after the impugned judgment and order was passed on 22nd September 2007, not even an application for certified copy was filed by the applicant. This application came to be filed for the first time on 11th September 2009, that too almost two months after service of the execution proceedings upon the applicant. There is no explanation offered for this conduct. There is also no explanation for the delay on the part of learned Advocate for the applicant in the District Court in giving his opinion recommending filing of the appeal. As regards the claim of the applicant that the office of Land Acquisition Department had shifted from one place to another, which according to it is another cause for delay is without any particulars whatsoever. In these circumstances, in my opinion, even after giving due consideration to the applicant being impersonal machinery suffering from the vice of bureaucratic methodology, it cannot be said that there is any cause made out for condonation of delay much less sufficient. In the circumstances, the Civil Application is dismissed with no order as to costs. (SMT.R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J)