1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. Civil Application No. 8231 of 2006 (VIDC Vs. Deepak Khushal Dhok & ors.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 25 th September, 2008 Heard Shri Patil for the applicant, and Shri Paliwal for the respondents. The counsel for the respondents strongly opposes the prayer made in the civil application. The counsel for the respondents also relies on the Judgment of Division Bench this Court reported in 2008 (4) All MR 856, to submit that the “official hassle” would not constitute sufficient or reasonable cause so as to condone delay. I have perused the contents of the civil application and the reply filed thereto. Though the reference Court had passed the judgment on 8/12/2003, the acquiring body was not made party to the reference application and hence did not know about the passing of the judgment on 8/12/2003. It is submitted in the civil 2 application that for the first time, the Corporation became aware about the Award dated 8/12/2003 after the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Washim, informed the same by a letter dated 18/3/2006. After the letter was received in the third week of April, the appellant took steps to challenge the Award passed on 8/12/2003. The necessary steps taken by the applicant are mentioned in paragraph 2 of the civil application. The judgment reported in 2008(4) All MR 856 would, therefore, not be applicable to the facts of the case. As the applicant was not aware of the passing of the Award for more than three years, the applicant could not have filed the appeal within time. The applicant has made out sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. However, the delay is condoned in the facts and circumstance of the case, subject to the payment of costs of Rs. 1,000/- to the respondent nos. 1 to 7. Costs may be paid to the counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 7, for the respondents, for the sake of convenience. C.A. is allowed in the aforesaid terms and disposed of. JUDGE RMP