Allowed

Shri. Prakash Vasudeo Deodhar v. the Special Land Acquisiton Officer

Bombay HC17 Jul 2007CAF/2400/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court allowed three civil applications seeking condonation of delay in filing appeals. The court held that flooding which destroyed applicants' houses constituted sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, overriding the respondent's argument that funds were already received.

What did the court decide?

The civil applications seeking condonation of delay are allowed and the appeals are disposed of.

Shri. Prakash Vasudeo Deodhar Vs the Special Land Acquisiton… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

 -: 1 :-

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2400 OF 2007

¶5

IN

¶6

 FIRST APPEAL (St.) NO. 1574 OF 2007

¶7

 Prakash Vasudeo Deodhar... ......Applicant.
 Versus

¶8

 The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
 Raigad, Alibag... ... Respondents.

¶9

 -: WITH :-

¶10

 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2401 OF 2007
 IN
 FIRST APPEAL (St.) NO. 1576 OF 2007

¶11

 Laxman Mahadu Nigrose..... ......Applicant.
 Versus

¶12

 The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
 Raigad, Alibag... ... Respondents.

¶13

 -: WITH :-

¶14

 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2402 OF 2007
 IN
 FIRST APPEAL (St.) NO. 4878 OF 2007

¶15

 Manohar Atmaram Atavane (since
 decd.) through his L.Rs.... ...... Applicants.
 Versus

¶16

 The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
 Metro Centre No.1, Panvel.. ... Respondents.

¶17

 Mr. S.M.Kamble for the Applicants.

¶18

 -: 2 :-

¶19

 Mr. K.K.Tated for the Respondents.

¶20

CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. &
SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.

¶21

DATED : 17TH JULY, 2007.

¶22

P.C.:

¶23

 These are the applications for condonation of
 delay in filing the present appeals.

¶24

 2. The reason given in support of argument that there
 was cause for not filing appeals within the prescribed
 period of limitation is that there was flood in July,
 2005 and the entire village was covered by water. The
 houses of the applicants were destroyed. They needed
 the money more urgently for resettling their houses
 and day-to-day needs and because of financial
 constraints they could not file appeals within time.

¶25

 3. The only opposition to the grant of this prayer is
 that the amounts awarded to the applicants under the
 Awards were paid to them and this money was available
 with them. The delay is intentional and no sufficient
 cause has been shown.

¶26

 -: 3 :-

¶27

 4. It is true that the provisions of the Limitation

¶28

 Act in the recent times have been construed somewhat
 liberally by the Court. Once the cause shown in the
 application for condonation of delay falls within the
 ambit and scope of the expressions given in Section 5
 of the Limitation Act, the Court should condone the
 delay rather than shutting the door for adjudication
 of the dispute on merits. In any case, these are the
 cases of compulsive acquisition. The fact that the
 lands of the applicants were acquired and taken away
 on payment of compensation would normally be a
 circumstance for declining the condonation. But the
 fact of the matter is that the houses of the
 applicants were completely flooded and more urgent
 need of livelihood and resettlement was obviously
 given preference by the applicants than filing the
 appeals. It may be true that each day’s delay has not
 been properly explained by the applicants but the
 period of delay has been compositely explained and we
 find that sufficient cause is shown for not filing the
 appeal in time.

¶29

 5. Consequently, we condone the delay in filing the

¶30

 -: 4 :-

¶31

 above appeals. The above civil applications are

¶32

 allowed and are disposed of, accordingly.

¶33

 6. The above appeals be registered and listed for
 hearing on 13th August, 2007 along with First Appeal
 (Stamp) Nos. 31164 of 2006, 31158 of 2006, 4858 of
 2007, 4875 of 2007, 4860 of 2007, 4854 of 2007, 4872
 of 2007, 4841 of 2007 and 4753 of 2007.

¶34

 Sd/-

¶35

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶36

 Sd/-

¶37

SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.

Shri. Prakash Vasudeo Deodhar v. the Special Land Acquisiton Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Prakash Vasudeo Deodhar v. the Special Land Acquisiton Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs Santaram Mahadu Pingle and Ors.

Ajay Ganesh Ubale Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 13 Ors.

The State Bank of Hyderrabad Vs the Spl.Land Acquisition Officer, Pune

Union of India and Ors. Vs Shatmanyu Sharma

Jaswantrai J. Goradia and Ors. Vs B.M.C. and Ors.