Disposed

The Executive Engineer N M C Division Vaijapur v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Jan 2013CA/8084/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addresses a condonation delay application in a land acquisition first appeal. The applicant, an acquiring body, was unaware of the reference court orders until 2006. The court accepted the reasons for delay as sufficient cause and directed that the appeal be registered and disposed of on merits.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 2651 days in filing the appeal was condoned; the appeal was ordered to be registered and fixed for admission and disposal. Civil Application was disposed of.

The Executive Engineer N M C Division Vaijapur Vs the State… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 c.a.8084.09

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8084 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO. 3595 OF 2007

¶4

The Executive Engineer
N.M.C. Division, Vaijapur
Tq.Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad ...APPLICANT

¶5

 VERSUS

¶6

 The State of Maharashtra

¶7

and others ...RESPONDENTS

¶8

...

¶9

 Shri V.R.Sonwalkar,Advocate for Applicant
 Shri K.G.Patil,A.G.P. for Respondent No.1
 Shri A.M.Hazri,Advocate for Respondents No. 2 & 3

¶10

 ...
CORAM: SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.

¶11

 DATE : 03.01.2013.

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

1. There is delay of 2651 days occurred in filing
the appeal.

¶14

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted

¶15

that the applicant had not been a party to Land
Acquisition Reference No. 234 of 1996 filed by
respondents-original claimants. He further submits
that the applicant neither had any notice nor

¶16

2 c.a.8084.09

¶17

opportunity of hearing before the Reference Court.
The applicant had been not aware of the orders passed
by the Reference Court. It was only when claimants
demanded the amount in the year 2006 from the
applicant, it had become aware of the orders passed
affecting it. Thereafter, this application has been
preferred after getting approval and as such delay has
occurred in filing the appeal. The applicant is
acquiring body and is ultimately liable to the
respondents-claimants. Thus, the reasons given in the
application,constitutesufficientcausefor

¶18

condonation of delay. He has pointed out an order
passed by this Court in Civil Application No. 10955 of
2008 and others, under similar circumstances condoning
the delay. He has submitted that finally concerned
First Appeal has been disposed of by remanding the
matter.

¶19

3. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3

¶20

opposed the application, pointing out an order passed
in Civil Application No. 1854 of 2007 in First Appeal
St. No. 1973 of 2007, which according to him had been

¶21

under similar circumstances and similar request for

¶22

3 c.a.8084.09

¶23

condonation of delay has been rejected. It is
contended that, it was for the learned AGP
representing the State or the Special Land Acquisition
Officer to intimate the acquiring body. As such, for
their failure, the claimants' interest should not be
put in peril.

¶24

4.Mr. Sonwalkar, learned counsel for the applicant
points out that against the order passed in Civil
Application 1854 of 2007 in First Appeal Stamp No.
1973 of 2007, Review Application has already been
filed and the same is pending.

¶25

5. It will have to be appreciated that practically
it may not be possible to send intimations in all
cases and for such lack of intimation, contest on
merits may not be prevented. Applications for delay
generally require liberal approach and would not be
considered pedantically. In the present case of
applicant does not appear to be at fault.

¶26

6.For the reasons given in the Civil Application
sufficient grounds are made out to condone the delay.

¶27

4 c.a.8084.09

¶28

The matter deserves to be heard on merits at the

¶29

instance of affected party.

¶30

7. Having regard to this, delay is condoned. The appeal be registered and be fixed for admission and its disposal.

¶31

8. Civil Application stands disposed of.

¶32

 Sd/-
 [SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]

¶33

MTK

The Executive Engineer N M C Division Vaijapur v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Executive Engineer N M C Division Vaijapur v. the State of Mah and Ors.

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

Usha Dattatraya Sane Vs the State of Mah through It Secretary Rural Dev Dept and Ors.

Hemant Shrawan Waghmare and Ors. Vs the State of Mah

Bapu Yadav Rohakale and Anr. Vs the State of Mah

The Ex Engineer Latur Minor Irrigation Division Latur Vs Venkat Bhima Bandgar and Anr.

The Ex Engineer Latur Minor Irrigation Division Latur Vs Vithala Khanda Koli L.Rs. Rukminbai Vithala Devganure Alias Koli and Ors.

Dineshkumr Fulchand Bharuka Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.