1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5203 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.10522 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5205 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.10527 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra and another APPLICANTS VERSUS Dnyandeo Rana Garje RESPONDENT Mr.V.B.Ghatge, learned AGP for applicants Mr.S.L.Bhapkar, learned counsel for the sole respondent. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 05/09/2009 PER COURT : 1. By these two civil applications, the applicants prayed for condonation of delay of 376 days in preferring the appeal against the judgment and award passed by The District Judge, Beed vide judgment and order dated 20/08/2005. As in both these civil applications, the facts are identical and common question of law 2 whether sufficient cause is shown to condone to delay, both these civil applications can be disposed of by way of common order. 2. Heard respective counsels for the parties. 3. It appears that by common judgment and award dated 20/08/2005, the Learned Additional District Judge, Beed vide his judgment and order dated 20/08/2005 disposed of the LAR No. 65/2003, with LAR 66/2003, with 67/2003, with 68/2003 out of which by the present civil applications, appellants have challenged the award in respect of LAR No.66/2003 and 68/2003. As contended in the application, after the award was passed, an application was filed to obtain the certified copies of the judgment and award on 22/08/2005. The copies were ready for delivery and delivered on 17/03/2006. Thereafter it appears that proposal was submitted to the Law and Judiciary Department to prefer an appeal against the judgment and award. It is further contended that after the sanction was granted to prefer an appeal by the Law and Judiciary Department, the appeal was drafted on 29.05.2006/13.2.2007, but it was filed on 25/06/2007. On reading the contents in the application particularly in para no.3 that the drafted appeal was ready for presentation on 13/02/2007, but in fact it is presented on 25/06/2007. No grounds are mentioned as to why the appeal was presented alongwith the application for condonation of delay after the period of 4 months and 12 days. Thus apart from sufficient and just cause shown to condone the delay, no cause is shown to condone the 3 delay at all in the civil applications preferred by the applicants to condone the delay. Apart from it, on merit, it is to be considered that the S.L.A.O. has granted the compensation @ 250/- per R, as against this the reference Court has awarded the enhanced compensation @ 550/- per acre i.e. the amount of compensation was enhanced by Rs. 300/- per acre by the Reference Court. During the course of submissions across the bar, my attention is drawn to the judgment and order under challenge and towards the reasoning recorded by the Reference Court in para no.9 wherein the Reference Court has observed about the four sale deeds of the adjacent lands came on record wherein the market value prevailing was shown @ 1945/- per R, Rs.1305/- per R, Rs. 1470/- per R and thus on the basis of these registered sale deeds came on record, it is concluded that the average market value of the 3 sale deeds on record indicate that the average market value prevailing in that area was Rs.1575/- per R or so. In the premise, if the prevailing market rate is around Rs.1500/- per R, and the amount of compensation was enhanced by the Reference Court by Rs.300/- per R. agreed enhanced compensation @ 550/- per R it can not be said that the enhanced compensation granted by the Reference Court is exorbitant enhancement at the hands of the Reference Court which required interference in the first appeal. Thus on merit also no cause is made out by the applicant. 4. Bearing in mind the facts which are discussed in both the paragraphs supra, no case is made out to condone the delay as no just and sufficient cause is shown by the applicants. The Civil 4 applications are devoid of any merit, hence liable to be rejected. Accordingly both the civil applications are rejected. Consequently the accompanied first appeals are also stand rejected with no order as to costs. The applicants are entitled for refund of requisite court fee as per rules. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/SEP 2009/ca5203-07