Heard the leaned AGP appearing for the appellant – State and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The appellant – State of Maharashtra has impugned Judgment and Award dated 30th November, 1995 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in a Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). The acquisition relates to lands situated at village Pendhar, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad which were notified for acquisition under Section 4(1) of the said Act on 3rd February, 1970. The purpose of acquisition was setting up satellite city of New Bombay. The Award made under Section 18 of the said Act was not accepted by the respondentclaimant and therefore, at his instance the Reference was made. The Reference Court by the impugned Judgment and Award has fixed the market value of the acquired land of Rs.14/per square meter and has granted statutory benefits under Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the said Act.

2. There is a Cross Objection filed by the respondent-claimant seeking enhancement in the market value. The said Cross Objection was filed by the respondent-claimant on 22nd June, 2011 alongwith an application for condonation of delay.

3. The submission of the learned AGP appearing for the appellant – State is that the respondent-claimant has not discharged the burden on him by adducing evidence to prove that the market value offered by an Award under Section 11 of the said Act is not adequate. He submitted that the impugned Award is not based on any legal evidence. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent relied on the decision of this Court in the First Appeal No.875 of 1985 [Abdul Aziz Husenmiya Patel V/s. Special Land Acquisition Officer] and other connected Appeals. He submitted that the land subject matter of this Appeal is similar to the lands subject matter of First Appeal Nos. 312 of 1999 and 315 of 1995. He submitted that this Court has fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.17.10/- per square meter while deciding the said First Appeals on 15th April, 2011.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the appellant has properly explained the delay in filing the Cross Objection in the application for condonation of delay and therefore, the said delay deserves to be condoned. The learned AGP appearing for the appellant submitted that in this Appeal of the year 2002, Cross Objection has been filed after Appeal was ready for final hearing. He pointed out that under Rule 22 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Cross Objection ought to have been be filed within one month from the date of service of notice of the Appeal. He submitted that, there is no explanation for such a long delay in filing the Cross Objection which was filed in June 2011 and therefore, no case is made out for condonation of delay.

5. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The first issue is regarding the condonation of delay in filing the Cross Objection. A Reference will have to be made to Sub Rule 1 of Rule 22 of Order XLI of the said Code which reads thus:

“Any respondent, though he may not have appealed from any part of the decree , may not only support the decree [but may also state that the finding against him in the Court below in respect of any issue ought to have been in his favour; and may also take any cross objection] to the decree which he could have taken by way of appeal, provided he has filed such objection in the Appellate Court within one month from th date of service on him or his pleader of notice of the day fixed for hearing the appeal, or within such further time as the Appellate Court may see fit to allow.”

6. Thus, under Sub Rule 1 of Rule 22 of Order XLI of the said Code, a power has been conferred upon the Appellate Court to extend the time to file Cross Objection. The Appellate Court can grant such further time as it may see fit to allow. The Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 22 does not lay down that