1 Civil Application No.7859 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7859 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.14347 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Babu Maruti Korade, Through legal heir RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7860 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.14435 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Shridhar Raghu Bhosale RESPONDENT Mr.K.G.Patil, learned A.G.P. For applicant/State in both applications. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 25/02/2011 PER COURT : 1. As both these civil applications are preferred by State to condone the delay of 1113 days arises against the common judgment 2 Civil Application No.7859 of 2009 and order, hence these civil applications are require to be disposed of by way of common order. 2. Heard learned A.G.P. According to him, the delay was caused in filing the first appeals challenging the judgment and award passed in Land Acquisition Reference No.110/2005 and Land Acquisition Reference No.111/2005, dated 29/03/2006 by the learned 2nd Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Beed. It is contended that the proposal was forwarded to Law and Judiciary Department on 10/01/2007. Some of the papers were received from Law and Judiciary Department in the month of July 2007, but all the documents were not received in the office of A.G.P. Lastly all the relevant documents were received in the office of A.G.P. On 10/07/2008, and thereafter, the appeals were prepared and presented before this Court on 14/07/2009. It is also contended that due to administrative difficulties and official hassles, delay is caused in preferring the appeals, which is not an intentional delay. 3. A Division Bench of this Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra and others versus Vithu Kalya Govari and others, reported in 2008(6) Mh.L.J. 239 has observed that explanation of ‘official hassles’ or administrative difficulties can not be regarded as sufficient ground for condonation of delay. This Court has also held that the explanation must be satisfactory. 4. In view of the observations of the Division Bench in the 3 Civil Application No.7859 of 2009 judgment referred supra, it is clear that the administrative difficulties is not a good ground to condone the delay. In the premise, as the delay is not explained satisfactorily, both the applications, sans merits, stand rejected. Court fees, if any paid by the applicant/State, be refunded as per rules. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/FEB. 2011/ca7859-09