1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3603 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 6629 OF 2008 The Executive Engineer .. .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. .. Respondents Shri Ruturaj Patil, Advocate, Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs. R. R. Mane, A.G.P. for respondents No. 1 & 2. Shri A. S. Usmanpurkar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3. CORAM : K. U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 15TH JUNE, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard counsel for the acquiring body/appellant and also for the claimant respondent No. 3. The acquiring body/appellant seeks to 2 condone the delay of 1704 days in causing to file the appeal challenging judgment and order in L.A.R. No. 370/1998 dated 29.04.2003. Normally such exorbitant delay is not entertained and naturally not condoned, but the facts stated in the application projects gloomy picture of the situation under which the acquiring body was required to travel. The notings of learned Judge are annexed to the application. Judgment is dated 29.04.2003 and on 30.04.2003 an endorsement is made, " copy of petition for preparation of decree/award not supplied by concern advocate hence decree/award not prepared". It is a matter of record that since there was no award/decree prepared on 14.02.2007, the acquiring body approached the learned Judge requesting to prepare decree/bill of cost in the matter. The learned Judge by order dated 11.04.2007 directed inquiry in the matter as to why the decree could not be prepared for such a long duration. The counsel informs that he himself with local advocate meet the learned District Judge in the month of May 2007 addressing difficulties and the apathy shown by the concerned clerical staff. 2. The counsel for the claimant informs that indeed there was already decree ready on 27th April, 2007. The counsel for the claimant object to entertain the application as the delay is not properly explained. He also informs that on the basis of the award under challenge an application was moved before the Collector in terms of Section 28(A) of Land Acquisition Act and 13 petitions were entertained by the learned 3 Collector and those of the respective land holders have received the amount on 04.12.2007. 3. The manner in which the proceedings are handled, cannot be appreciated. The delay cannot be attributable to the appellant herein as the Court record projects a sorry state of affairs, where the acquiring body was to suffer indeed has suffered, in view of the award of the learned Collector U/Sec. 28A of the Land Acquisition Act. The writ petition stamp No. 9584/2007 was required to be moved by the acquiring body seeking direction to prepare the decree/bill of cost and since the decree was subsequently prepared, it was withdrawn. 4. The above state of affairs, definitely was beyond the control of the acquiring body. The delay of 1704 days, is not deliberate or intentional. There is no slackness on the part of the acquiring body. Delay is properly explained. The rights available to the acquiring body should not be curtailed and foreclosed on the exorbitant delay and taking recourse to the technicality. The delay is condoned. Application is allowed. 6. Needless, to add the learned Principal District Judge, Jalna will look in to the matter as to who was instrumental in not preparing the bill of cost/decree and avoid the obligation of the duty. Learned Principal District Judge will naturally fix responsibility on the concerned, 4 including taking departmental action as per Rules. [ K. U. CHANDIWAL, ] JUDGE bsb/June09/C.A. 3603.08