1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CA NO.5174/2009 IN FAST NO.9041/2009 CA NO.5141/2009 IN FAST NO.9047/2009 CA NO.5143/2009 IN FAST NO.9078/2009 CA NO.5145/2009 IN FAST NO.9064/2009 CA NO.5147/2009 IN FAST NO.9058/2009 CA NO.5149/2009 IN FAST NO.9054/2009 CA NO.5152/2009 IN FAST NO.9078/2009 CA NO.5155/2009 IN FAST NO.9081/2009 CA NO.5157/2009 IN FAST NO.9051/2009 CA NO.5159/2009 IN FAST NO.9044/2009 CA NO.5161/2009 IN FAST NO.9067/2009 CA NO.5163/2009 IN FAST NO.9061/2009 CA NO.5165/2009 IN FAST NO.9025/2009 CA NO.5167/2009 IN FAST NO.9028/2009 CA NO.5169/2009 IN FAST NO.9034/2009 CA NO.5171/2009 IN FAST NO.9038/2009 CA NO.5174/2009 IN FAST NO.9041/2009 CA NO.5176/2009 IN FAST NO.9022/2009 CA NO.5178/2009 IN FAST NO.9074/2009 CA NO.5180/2009 IN FAST NO.9012/2009 CA NO.5183/2009 IN FAST NO.9031/2009 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM : P.R. BORKAR.J. DATED : 24.03.2010 Heard Mr. T.S. Lodhe, A.G.P. for the applicants. 2. These are the applications for 2 condonation of delay in filing appeals against the judgment and awards passed by the Adhoc Additional District Judge- III, Latur in L.A.R. Nos. 605 of 1998 to 624 of 1998 decided by common judgment on 20-07-2007. The delay is of 735 days. 3. In application, it is stated that after decision on 20-07-2007, the Law and Judiciary Department vide G.R. No. 288/2008 took the decision on 01-02-2008 to prefer the appeals against the awards passed by the Adhoc Additional District Judge, Latur. The Government Pleader's Office received proposal on 02-02-2008. Thereafter, the draft was prepared and was ready in February 2008. However, the certified copies and the typed copies of the awards were not received from the concerned persons and ultimately they 3 were received on 12-09-2008 and difference chart was received on 07-11-2008. Ultimately, the appeals alongwith applications for condonation of delay were filed on 22-04-2009. 4. It may noted that even though the proposals for filing the appeals were sanctioned and received in February 2008 and though draft appeal memos were ready on 27-02-2008, further steps were not immediately taken. It is not explained why the certified copies were not obtained while sending the proposals to Law and Judiciary Department for sanction. In fact, the Law and Judiciary Department ought to insist on getting certified copies immediately after decision by the Reference Court, so that alongwith the sanction order, for filing the appeals they are sent. Moreover, it is not 4 explained why typed copies and difference chart could not be prepared in the office of the Government Pleader and why that required about 5 to 7 months. Even after everything was ready in November 2008, still there was delay of another 5 months. In my opinion, delay is not properly explained. It was possible to avoid such a long delay of 735 days. The reasons given for delay are not satisfactory. 5. In order to satisfy this Court, meritorious is not disposed of at threshold, this Court has perused the judgment. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 02-05-1994. Rate of Rs.600/- per Are was awarded by the Reference Court. With these observations, these applications for condonation delay are 5 dismissed. 6. Copy of this order be sent to the Principal Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department, so that he may take remedial action to avoid such delay, if he deems so fit. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] sut/MAR10/ca5174.09