This order rejects a civil application for condoning a delay of 2335 days in filing a first appeal against a land acquisition judgment and award. The court held that the delay was not satisfactorily explained, rendering it unfit for condonation.
Civil application rejected, delay in filing appeal not condoned, appeal deemed not maintained.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6192 OF 2005 IN
FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 8144 OF 2005
|___
Office Notes, Office|
||_____|
|---|---|---|
|Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's
orders or directions||
|
||
Court's or Judge's orders|
|and Registrar's orders
_||
|_______________________________|
This application is for condonation of delay of 2335 days, caused in filing the appeal. The impugned judgment and award was passed on 4.9.1998. In the application, it is averred that the proposal was sanctioned by the Law and Judiciary Department, Aurangabad on 11.3.1999 and the said proposal was forwarded to the office of the Government Pleader and the office of the Government Pleader, had received the said proposal on 16.3.1999. The office of the Government Pleader issued communications on 24.3.1999, 10.7.2000, 19.9.2000, 18.1.2002, 6.11.2002, 15.11.2002 and finally on 5.4.2005. The appeal was eventually filed on 25.4.2005. In para 4 of the application, it is asserted that because of short man power and the heavy work load, the appeal could not be filed within time.
On merits, perusal of the impugned judgment indicates that the Land Acquisition
Officer awarded the compensation of Rs.2,670/which was enhanced to Rs.16,204/- by the Reference court. Considering the quantum involved in the appeal as also the delay, which in my opinion, is not satisfactorily explained, this is not a fit case to condone the delay. Hence, civil application is rejected.
(R.G. KETKAR, J.)
Date:27.11.2009. rlj/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the delay of 2335 days in filing the appeal can be condoned given the unsatisfactory explanation regarding short manpower and workload.
Appellant/Petitioner
Respondent/Respondents
R.G. KETKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
