{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7353 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.15397 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Hanmant Yeshwanta Godbole RESPONDENT ....... Mr. D.V.Tele, AGP for applicant State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 27th August 2010 PER COURT: 1. By this civil application, the applicant State seeks to condone the delay of 476 days caused in preferring appeal challenging the judgment and award passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur in LAR No.965/1999. 2. It appears that Rule was issued in this application on 06.06.2008. Today, when the application came up for final hearing, heard learned AGP for the applicant-State. 3. According to the applicant-State, the impugned judgment was rendered on 06.01.2006, certified copy was applied {2} for on 31.01.2006, which was ready for delivery on 27.02.2006 and was collected on the same day. Thereafter appeal was proposed, which was approved by the Law and Judiciary Department and the proposal to file the appeal was received to the office of Government Pleader on 12.06.2006. It is stated that however, copies of the impugned judgment and other relevant documents were not sent along with the proposal to file appeal, however the same were received subsequently on 27.06.2007 and hence the appeal could not be drafted and filed within the period of limitation. The appeals were filed on 23.08.2007. 4. Learned AGP states that the delay is unintentional and not deliberate. He has also contended that due to the official difficulties and procedural hassles at various places in Government Departments and also time was consumed in obtaining typed copy of the impugned judgment, the delay has occurred. Therefore, it is prayed to condone the same. 5. Apart from the merit of the application seeking condonation of delay, even the amount of compensation enhanced by the lower court is very meager, considering the area of land acquired. 6. A 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 has observed that explanation of {3} ‘procedural hassles’ cannot be regarded as sufficient ground for condonation of delay. This Court has also held that the explanation must be satisfactory. 7. In view of the observations of this Court in the 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, as the delay is not explained satisfactorily, the application, sans merits, stands rejected. Rule stands discharged. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/ca7353-07