{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.428 OF 2005 WITH FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.23926 OF 2004 The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Bhausaheb Limbaji Jagtap RESPONDENT ....... Mr.V.H.Dighe, AGP for applicant / State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE : 5th September 2009 PER COURT: 1. By the present civil application, the applicant has prayed for condonation of 2299 days delay in preferring first appeal challenging the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court. 2. Learned AGP has contended that the delay has been caused due to official and administrative difficulties. Division Bench of this Court, in “State of Maharashtra V/s Vithu Kalya Govari” reported in 2008 (6) Mh.L.J. 239 has observed that the application for condonation of delay must disclose sufficient and satisfactory reasons. Mere official hassles cannot be said to be a ground for condonation of delay. Considering the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court and considering the enormous delay, which is not sufficiently and {2} satisfactorily explained, the delay cannot be condoned. 3. Apart from the above, even on merits also the applicant has no case. The Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation @ Rs.12,000/- per Hectare whereas Reference Court has granted compensation @ Rs.20,000/- per acre, that too on the basis of sale instances of adjoining lands at the relevant time. If the reference court has enhanced the compensation on the basis of sale instances brought on record which indicates the prevailing market rates, it cannot be said that the compensation granted by the reference Court is exorbitant. Thus, even on merits also the applicant has no case. 4. In the result, as no sufficient and satisfactory reasons are given for condonation of delay, the application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed with no order as to costs. 5. As the application for condonation of delay is dismissed, the accompanying first appeal does not survive and hence stands rejected. The applicant is entitled for refund of court fees as per rules. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/ca428-05