FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURNAGABAD Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directios and Registrar’s Orders. COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS __________________________________________________________________________________________ 1214 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3925 OF 2011 ,In FAST/6242/2011 ,With CA/3926/2011 ,In FAST/6238/2011 with CA/3927/2011 in FAST/6244/2011 ,With CA/3928/2011 ,In FAST/6246/2011 ,With CA/3929/2011 ,In FAST/6248/2011 ,With CA/3930/2011 ,In FAST/6250/2011 ,With CA/3931/2011 ,In FAST/6232/2011 ,With CA/3932/2011 ,In FAST/6235/2011 ,With CA/3933/2011 ,In FAST/6220/2011 ,With CA/3934/2011 ,In FAST/6217/2011 ,With CA/3935/2011 ,In FAST/6223/2011 ,With CA/3936/2011 ,In FAST/6228/2011 ,With CA/3937/2011 ,In FAST/6225/2011 ,With CA/3938/2011 ,In FAST/6198/2011 THE STATE OF MAH, THR. COLECTOR, LATUR AND ANR VERSUS LIMBAJI MANAJI KANDRE ... Advocate for applicant(s) : Mr. T.S. Lodhe, AGP ... CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. Dated: August 2, 2011 ... 1 These are the applications presented by the State seeking condonation of delay of 1929 days occurred in presenting the appeals. 2 Heard learned AGP for the State. Reference court passed judgment and award in the group of reference applications on 24-8-2005. Applicant / State applied for certified copy after lapse of more than three FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURNAGABAD Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directios and Registrar’s Orders. COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS __________________________________________________________________________________________ years i.e. on 13-11-2008. The Law and Judiciary department had already communicated to the office of the Government Pleader in respect of granting sanction to present appeal against the impugned judgment and award, on 12-6-2006. However, the appeals actually came to be presented by the State on 5-3-2011 i.e. after lapse of about six years from the date of passing of the award. Huge delay occurred in presenting the appeals has not at all been explained in the applications. Applications are devoid of substance. 3 Even on consideration of merits of the controversy, appeal do not require consideration. Reference court has directed payment of compensation at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per acre for dry crop lands and Rs.28,000/- for seasonally irrigated lands. Considering the meager amount of enhancement directed by the reference court, appeals do not deserve favourable consideration. Applications presented by the State seeking condonation of delay occurred in presenting the appeals stand rejected. Appeals presented by the State therefore need not be registered. Applicant / State shall have liberty to claim refund of court fees, in accordance with rules. ( R.M. BORDE, J. )