Tauseef 13-CA.7344.2024.odt IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7344 OF 2024 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7344 OF 2024 IN IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.4224 OF 2024 FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.4224 OF 2024 Asaram Mahadeo Choure & Ors. Asaram Mahadeo Choure & Ors. ...Applicants ...Applicants Versus Versus The State of Maharashtra, The State of Maharashtra, Through the Collector Beed & Ors. Through the Collector Beed & Ors. …Respondents …Respondents WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7345 OF 2024 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7345 OF 2024 IN IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.4228 OF 2024 FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.4228 OF 2024 WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7346 OF 2024 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7346 OF 2024 IN IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.4234 OF 2024 FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.4234 OF 2024 _____________________________________________________ Adv. Dattatraya R. Jayabhar for Applicants. Adv. D. B. Bhange, AGP for Respondent No.1. _____________________________________________________ CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR DATE : 2nd JANUARY 2025 P.C.:- CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7344 OF 2024:- CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7344 OF 2024:- 1. Heard Mr. Jayabhar, learned Advocate appearing for Applicants and learned AGP for Respondent No.1. 2. Inspite of service of notice, none appears for Respondent No.2. 1 of 3 2025:BHC-AUG:99 Tauseef 13-CA.7344.2024.odt 3. Applicants seeks to condone the delay of 541 days caused in filing first appeal against judgment and award dated 12th May 2022 passed by Civil Judge Senior Division at Ambajogai, District Beed. Mr. Jayabhar submits that land of the Applicants have been acquired under award dated 20th March 2006. Applicants had approached the Reference Court under Section 18 of Limitation Act, seeking enhancement of compensation. Although their claim is accepted to certain extend, no compensation is paid towards fruit bearing trees. He submits that the delay caused in filing appeal is unintentional and because of the financial difficulties faced by Applicants. 4. Learned AGP opposes the application saying that the reasons are not adequate to constitute sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of Limitation Act. 5. Having considered submissions advanced, it is apparent that Applicants are litigating for just compensation of the acquired land. Although their claim is partly allowed by Reference Court, no compensation is awarded towards fruit bearing trees. Applicants have explained the reasons for delay in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8. The averments in the application are not controverted by filing Affidavit-in- reply. As such there is no impediment in condoning the delay. 2 of 3 Tauseef 13-CA.7344.2024.odt 6. Consequently, application is allowed. The delay caused in filing the appeal is condoned. Appeal be registered subject to removal of office objections. (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.) 3 of 3