1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10427 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.18302 OF 2010 Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation, Through its Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Division, Latur & Anr. ...APPLICANTS VERSUS Rajkumar s/o Laxman Mitkare, Age: 25 years, Occ: Agri., R/o. Dhanora (Bk.), Ahmedpur, District Latur & Anr. ...RESPONDENTS WITH CA.NO.10431 OF 2010 IN FAST NO.18451 OF 2010 CA.NO.10434 OF 2010 IN FAST NO.18487 OF 2010 CA.NO.10437 OF 2010 IN FAST NO.18462 OF 2010 CA.NO.10441 OF 2010 IN FAST NO.18456 OF 2010 CA.NO.10444 OF 2010 IN FAST NO.18454 OF 2010 CA.NO.10447 OF 2010 IN FAST NO.18447 OF 2010 CA.NO.10450 OF 2010 IN FAST NO.18471 OF 2010 CA.NO.10453 OF 2010 IN FAST NO.18495 OF 2010 CA.NO.10456 OF 2010 IN FAST NO.18504 OF 2010 CA.NO.10459 OF 2010 IN FAST NO.18500 OF 2010 CA.NO.10462 OF 2010 IN FAST NO.18485 OF 2010 CA.NO.10465 OF 2010 IN FAST NO.18443 OF 2010 CA.NO.10468 OF 2010 IN FAST NO.18439 OF 2010 CA.NO.10471 OF 2010 IN FAST NO.18478 OF 2010 CA.NO.10474 OF 2010 IN FAST NO.18469 OF 2010 CA.NO.10477 OF 2010 IN FAST NO.18483 OF 2010 CA.NO.10480 OF 2010 IN FAST NO.18467 OF 2010 2 ... Shri. S.G. Sangle, Advocate for applicants. Shri. P.M. Shah, Senior Counsel with Shri. V.T. Sakolkar, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Shri. V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for respondent State. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 6TH AUGUST, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Shri. S.G. Sangle, learned Counsel for the applicants submits that there is delay of 759 days in filing appeals. The delay is unintentional. The applicant is acquiring body and if delay is not condoned, the acquiring body would be prejudiced and would be deprived from challenging order passed by the Reference Court. 3. Shri. P.M. Shah, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 opposed for condonation of delay on the ground that delay has not been 3 satisfactorily explained. 4. After hearing submissions advanced, we find that though delay is abnormal one, the applicants have explained satisfactorily the reasons of delay and the learned Counsel put up submissions in respect of condonation of delay. 5. The applicant is a Corporation and it is informed that Executive Engineer was party to the proceeding before the Reference Court. In this view of the matter, we find that abundant care ought to have been taken by the Corporation in taking effective steps to prefer appeals against the judgment award passed by the Reference Court. 6. Considering all these facts of the matter and explanation provided, we find that an opportunity to the applicant Corporation is necessary which could be in the shape of filing appeals against the said Award. We are inclined to condone delay subject to payment of costs by the applicants. 4 7. Delay occurred in filing appeals stand condoned subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) in each of the appeals. It should be deposited within four weeks in this Court. Civil Applications stand allowed to that extent. 8. The Managing Director of the Corporation or their appropriate authority is entitled to inquire to fix the responsibility of delay in filing appeals in this Court. In case, it is found that particular Officers dealing with files are responsible then Corporation is entitled to recover the amount of costs from such Officers. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] sut/AUG10/ca10427.10