Allowed

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Div. Nanded v. Datta Ramrao Deshmukh and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Dec 2014CA/1781/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court condoned a 554-day delay in filing a first appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. In a related matter, the Court held that an added party cannot claim enhancement under Section 18 but directed deposit of the award amount to proceed.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 554 days condoned; Appeal admitted and listed for hearing; Deposit of amount directed.

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Div. Nanded Vs… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

ca178112.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1781 OF 2012 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.1793 OF 2012

¶5

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Nanded

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Datta s/o Ramrao Deshmukh & others

¶9

Respondents

¶10

Mr.Atul R. Kale, advocate for the applicant. Mr.P.B.Vikhe Patil, advocate for Respondents No.1 & 2. Mr.P.P.More, A.G.P. for Respondents No.3 & 4.

¶11

CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.M.BADAR, JJ. DATE : 01st December, 2014

¶12

PER COURT:

¶13

1 Heard respective Counsel.

¶14

2 The prayer is to condone delay of 554 days in filing appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act by the acquiring body. The reasons disclosed in the affidavit being pressed into service. Learned A.G.P., appearing for Respondents No.3 & 4, supports the prayer.

¶15

3 Learned advocate Shri Vikhe Patil, appearing for land owners, is opposing the prayer. However, he fairly points out that land owners have filed First Appeal No.1944 of 2010 and it has been admitted for final hearing on 30.09.2010.

¶16

ca178112.odt

¶17

{2}

¶18

4 The acquiring body has not pointed out the date on which it was served with notice of admission of that appeal. However, as the land owners have already sought enhancement and their appeal is admitted, without going into further niceties, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay Delay is condoned. Office to register the appeal.

¶19

Civil Application disposed of.

¶20

A.M.BADAR

¶21

JUDGE

¶22

B.P.DHARMADHIKARI

JUDGE

adb/ca178112

ca178112.odt

{3}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.1793 OF 2012

¶28

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Nanded

¶29

Appellant

¶30

Versus

¶31

Datta s/o Ramrao Deshmukh & others

¶32

Respondents

¶33

Mr.Atul R. Kale, advocate for the appellant. Mr.P.B.Vikhe Patil, advocate for Respondents No.1 & 2. Mr.P.P.More, A.G.P. for Respondents No.3 & 4.

¶34

CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI &

¶35

A.M.BADAR, JJ. DATE : 01st December, 2014

¶36

PER COURT:

¶37

Heard respective Counsel.

¶38

This Court has today, by a separate order on Civil Application No.1781 of 2012, condoned delay of 554 days in filing this appeal.

¶39

The Registry is directed to register it.

¶40

Admit .

¶41

List for hearing with First Appeal No.1944 of 2010.

¶42

Advocate Shri Vikhe Patil waives notice for Respondents No.1 & 2. Learned A.G.P. waives notice for Respondents No.3 & 4.

¶43

A.M.BADAR B.P.DHARMADHIKARI

JUDGE

JUDGE

adb/ca178112

ca178112.odt

{4}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1782 OF 2012 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.1793 OF 2012

¶50

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Nanded

¶51

Applicant

¶52

Versus

¶53

Datta s/o Ramrao Deshmukh & others

¶54

Respondents

¶55

Mr.Atul R. Kale, advocate for the applicant. Mr.P.B.Vikhe Patil, advocate for Respondents No.1 & 2. Mr.P.P.More, A.G.P. for Respondents No.3 & 4.

¶56

CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI &

¶57

A.M.BADAR, JJ. DATE : 01st December, 2014

¶58

PER COURT:

¶59

Heard for some time.

¶60

The contention in reference is barred by limitation as the party is allowed to be added in Section 18 proceedings after expiry of period of 42 days. Thus, that added party cannot claim any enhancement in the appeal.

¶61

We keep this contention open. the appellant/applicant to deposit the amount, as per award, with the Registry of this Court, within a period of three months from today. The request for withdrawal shall be considered after the amount is received by the Registry. The contention kept open, as above, shall be looked into at that sage.

¶62

adb/ca178112

¶63

A.M.BADAR B.P.DHARMADHIKARI JUDGE JUDGE

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Div. Nanded v. Datta Ramrao Deshmukh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Div. Nanded v. Datta Ramrao Deshmukh 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

Narharrao Alias Narhari Govindrao Bhoomkar Died Thro. Lrs. Suresh Narharrao Bhoomkar and Others Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Ramhari Balasaheb Ghadge and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The Grampanchayat Jambhala, Group Grampanchayat and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kamal Janardhan Munde Vs the Union of India and Others

Prasad Padmprabhu Zade and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

K S a Javed Shakir Ismail Shakir Vs Afsaribegum Sayyed Ejaz Ahmed and Ors.