1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD C. A. NO. 1854 OF 2007 IN F. A. ST. NO. 1973 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO. 1976 OF 2007 The Executive Engineer - - Applicant Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra and others - - Respondents Shri V. R. Sonwalkar, Advocate for the applicant. CORAM : K. U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 19TH JUNE, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Heard counsel for the acquiring body. The acquiring body feels aggrieved by the order of enhancement by the learned reference Court. The interests of acquiring body are adversely affected by such enhancement. By virtue of Government notifications, it has responsibility to past and future payment. Consequently, leave to appeal granted. 2. The acquiring body seeks the condonation of delay of 2579 days in causing to file the appeal. The counsel informs since acquiring body was 2 not party before the reference Court and it was S. L. A. O. or the A. G. P. who did not intimate it. They were unaware of such reference being pending and entertained. 3. The acquiring body says it come into the picture in the year 1998, while the reference was lodged in the year 1992 and decided on 18.10.1999. It was an obligation cast on the learned A. G. P. representing the State or the learned S. L. A. O. to intimate the acquiring body. However, the responsibility cannot be and should not be shouldered by claimant who lost their property pursuant to Section 4 notification shown in 1990. I do not see that on this sole ground the exorbitant delay can be condoned. Application rejected, consequently appeal is rejected. [ K. U. CHANDIWAL ] JUDGE bsb/June 09/CA 1854.07