Vijay S/O Digambar Gawande v. The State Of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Yavatmal And 2 Others

0510caf2537.14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION (CAF) NO. 2537 OF 2014 Vijay Digambar Gawande Vs. State of Maharashtra thr Collector Yavatmal & Ors. ........................................................................................................................................................................ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................................................ Shri A. S. Ghawde Adv for applicant.

Shri M. A. Kadu AGP for respondents.

CORAM: A.S.CHANDURKAR J.

DATED: 5th OCTOBER, 2015.

Prayer is to condone the delay of 2675 days in filing the appeal. The appeal is preferred against the judgment of the reference Court dated 25.08.2006. In the application it is stated that the father of the applicant died on 30.07.2007. The applicant was thereafter busy in giving medical treatment to his mother who was suffering from cancer. It is further stated that applicant's mother expired on 04/08/2012. After getting knowledge about the enhancement of compensation in respect of the lands at village Pahur district Yavatmal the present appeal was filed on 21.03.2014. Along with the application copies of certain orders passed in respect of lands from adjoining villages are placed on record.

Application is opposed by counsel for the respondents. It is submitted that necessary details have not been stated in the application and delay has not been satisfactorily explained.

0510caf2537.14 Perusal of the application for condonation of delay indicates that reference has been made only to the date of death of the parents of the applicant. The date when the applicant got knowledge as regards proceedings from other villages being decided is not mentioned. Similarly the date when the applicant got amount of additional compensation is also not stated. In view of absence of necessary particulars and there being no sufficient cause for explaining the delay the application is rejected. JUDGE svk