1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6264 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.12988 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6265 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.13027 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra and another APPLICANTS VERSUS Rambhau Uttam Narwade and another RESPONDENTS Mr.V.B.Ghatge, learned AGP for applicants. Mr.S.L.Bhapkar, learned counsel for respondents. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 05/09/2009 PER COURT : 1. By both these civil applications, the applicants have prayed for condonation of delay of 515 days in preferring the first appeal against the judgment and award passed by the 7th Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Beed in LAR No.322/2003 and 323/2003. The facts 2 which gave rise to file the present civil applications are based on identical facts and as same question of Law is involved, both these civil applications can be disposed of by one common order. 2. Heard respective counsels. 3. It is not under dispute that LAR No.322/2003 and LAR No. 323/2003 were disposed of by common judgment dated 06/04/2005. The application for obtaining certified copies was filed on 07/04/2005 and the certified copies were received on 01/07/2005. Thereafter it appears that the proposal was forwarded to the Law and Judiciary Department to prefer an appeal and the proposal was granted and received back in the office of Government Pleader on 16/08/2005. As per the contents, the draft of the appeal was ready for presentation on 13/02/2007, but in fact it was presented on 27/07/2007. Thus the fact is clear that there is absolutely no explanation coming forward as to why even though the appeal was ready for presentation on 13/02/2007, but was not presented for further 5 months till July 2007. Thus there are no grounds mentioned in the application for condonation of delay after the appeal is ready, but not presented during the period of February 2007 to July 2007. 4. Apart from it, on the merit of the appeal, the S.L.A.O. has fixed the compensation @ Rs.741/- per R about the lands acquired of the claimants/opponents. The Reference Court while enhancing the 3 compensation under the land reference, enhaned this amount to the tune of Rs.1200/- per R. With the assistance of learned counsels appearing for the parties, the judgment of the Reference Court is perused. In para no.18,19 and 20, some instances of the adjacent lands were quoted which shows that the prevailing market price was Rs.2500/- per R and in the sale instance quoted in para no.20 price of the land was Rs.7100/- per R. As against this, the compensation enhanced by Learned Reference Court is @ 1200/- per R. Considering the difference between the prevailing market price, which can be inferred from the copies on record and the amount of compensation enhanced by the Reference Court, the enhanced amount can not be treated as exorbitant compensation awarded by the Reference Court. In the premise, there is no scope even on merits to the applicant. 5. For the discussion made in foregoing paragraphs, the civil applications ought to be dismissed as no sufficient grounds are shown to the subjective satisfaction of this Court for condonation of delay and accordingly both these civil applications are dismissed as devoid of any merits. As both the civil applications stand dismissed, consequently the accompanied first appeals are also 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/ca6264-07