Dismissed

The State of Mah and Anr. v. Kallappa Karbasappa Konshetti(Died) through Lrs Dayanand Kallappa Konshetti

Bombay HC13 Jul 2010CA/2303/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge dismissed applications for condonation of delay of 997 days in filing first appeals against land acquisition awards. The court held that the reasons given were unsatisfactory and limited the enhancement amounts were too small to justify extending the limitation period.

What did the court decide?

Applications for condonation of delay were dismissed.

The State of Mah and Anr. Vs Kallappa Karbasappa… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

C.A. NO. 2303 OF 2010 IN F.A. ST. NO. 594 OF 2010
C.A. NO. 2304 OF 2010 IN F.A. ST. NO. 592 OF 2010
C.A. NO. 2305 OF 2010 IN F.A. ST. NO. 570 OF 2010

¶5

Office Notes,Office MemorandaCourt's or Judge's orders
of Coram,appearances, Court's
orders or directions andCORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J.
Registrar's ordersDATED : 13.07.2010

¶6

1.Heard A.G.P. Shri B.V. Wagh
for the applicants. These are
applications for condonation of delay
of 997 days in filing the First
Appeals. The appeals are directed
against Land Acquisition Reference Nos.
175, 176 and 177 of 2003 decided by a
common judgment by the Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Nilanga on 16.01.2007.
The enhanced amounts awarded are
respectively Rs. 6672/-, Rs. 26021/-
and Rs. 6672/-.

¶7

2.After hearing the learned
A.G.P. for the applicant, considering
the reasons given in the application
and considering the quantum of
enhancement awarded, in my opinion,

¶8

¶9

there is no sufficient reason to
condone the delay. If we have regard
to Section 102 and Section 96 (4) of
the C.P.C., it is not in the interest
of society and the litigants that
litigation should be encouraged in
respect of small amounts. In two of
the matters, the enhanced amount is
less than Rs. 10,000/-.

¶10

3.Thereasonsgivenfor
condonation of delay of 997 days are
notsatisfactory.Hence,the
applications are dismissed.

¶11

[P.R. BORKAR, J.]

¶12

snk/2010/JUL10/ca2303.10

The State of Mah and Anr. v. Kallappa Karbasappa Konshetti(Died) through Lrs Dayanand Kallappa Konshetti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Mah and Anr. v. Kallappa Karbasappa Konshetti(Died) through Lrs Dayanand Kallappa Konshetti

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

Baswantappa Huchappa Gandiguee. Vs Shankara Rajaram Wattamwar (L.Rs.)Manikabai and Ors.

Narhari Bhiva Dhok. Vs Bahiru Pandu Dhok and Others.

Prakashrao Bhagwanrao and Others. Vs Abedabegum Golamahmed Thro.G.P.a.

Jayashri Chintaman Abhyenkar. Vs Railway North Colony Eduction Society,Bhusawal.

Mohammad Khan @ Babamiya Noorkhan. Vs Haji Shaikh Lal Shaikh Ahemad and Others.

Ramrao Kishanrao Badge and Ors. Vs Kishanrao Nivruttibadge Died and Ors.