1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4135 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.6272 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ...APPLICANT. VERSUS Ramkisan s/o Babasaheb Kalase and others. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mr.V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for Applicants. ... WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4130 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.6330 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4131 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.6318 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4132 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.6327 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4133 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.6324 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4134 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.6321 OF 2009 2 CORAM: K.U. CHANDWAL, J. DATE : 19TH DECEMBER, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned A.G.P. The State seeks to condone the delay of 645 days in causing to file the respective Appeals. In group of Land References by order dated 2nd December, 2006 the learned Adhoc District Judge-2, Beed enhanced the compensation from Rs.248/- per R to Rs.900/- per R. The State moved application for certified copy of the Judgment and award on 5th December, 2006. The copies were ready for delivery on 17th March, 2007, collected on 22nd March, 2007. However, the Appeal could not be preferred within the statutory period even after 22nd March, 2007. The reasons assigned are that though the draft appeal was prepared the matter was wandering at the floors of various departments and had its adverse impact on the filing of the Appeal. These aspects, will not be indicating sufficiency of the grounds to exercise in terms of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay. 3 2. Even otherwise, with the assistance of the learned A.G.P. I have gone through the award under challenge. The learned Judge was not overwhelmed with the sale instances which were of Chausala and of a petty piece of land but the sale was too high in its consideration which was an eye opener. The learned Reference Judge considered the feasibility of the property where it situate and the development going on in the nearby vicinity including irrigation facilities. These aspects, at the same time of condoning or not condoning the delay also plays a pivotal role. I do not see any ground for condoning the delay in each of the Application, as it is not sufficiently disclosed. The respective Applications and the First Appeals are dismissed. Necessary Court Fee be refunded. [K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.] asb/DEC09/ca4135.09