Ramdas Ganpati Kumbhar v. The State Of Maharashtra

1 c.a.3472.14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3472 OF 2014 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION ST. NO. 4942 OF 2014 Ramdas Ganpati Kumbhar ...Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

.....

Mr. S.N. Rodge, Advocate for Applicant Mr. K.S. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent .....

CORAM : A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.

DATED : 7TH JANUARY, 2015 Order :- 1.

Heard both sides.

2.

Notice to respondent. Learned A.G.P. waives service for respondent. With consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties civil application for condonation of delay is heard finally. 3.

Learned counsel appearing for applicant submits that the applicant is illiterate person and because of this, delay of 1457 days was caused in preferring revision. He submits that the delay may be condoned.

4.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader opposes the application. 5.

Perused the civil revision application, which has been tendered by the applicant and the judgment and award dated 30-11-2009, in Land Acquisition Reference No. 725 of 2002 passed by learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Ahmedpur, District Latur.

2 c.a.3472.14 6.

Perused Application for condonation of delay. What is mentioned by the applicant in the application is that, the delay was caused because the applicant was unaware of the judgment and award dated 30-11-2009 passed in Land Acquisition Reference No. 725 of 2002. He claims to have got the knowledge of order in the month of December, 2013. It is not mentioned as to how knowledge was acquired only in the month of December, 2013. The applicant claims that he is poor agriculturist and due to negligence on the part of his advocate, engaged before the reference court on his behalf, reference petition was dismissed. It is also mentioned that due to gap of internal communication also delay is caused.

7.

It is not mentioned in the application that the applicant is illiterate as has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. Conveniently blame has been put on the advocate to explain inordinate delay of 1457 days caused in preferring the revision. The delay has not been properly explained. Reasons given are not appealing. The applicant appears to have earlier accepted the impugned order but now for reasons known to him decided to challenge the order. 8.

For the reasons stated above, I am not inclined to entertain the application. As such, application stands rejected. Sd/- ( A.I.S. CHEEMA, J. ) MTK