Allowed

Executive Engineer, Irrigation Project Strengthening Division,Omerga (Now Under M.K.V.D.C. Ltd,Pune v. Shivappa Hanumant Birajdar and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Dec 2017CA/11123/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single bench order allowing an acquiring body's civil application for condonation of delay in filing a first appeal against an impugned judgment and award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court adopted a liberal approach due to public interest and lack of prejudice.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay allowed; appeal to be registered.

Executive Engineer, Irrigation Project Strengthening… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

1 925-CA-11123-16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

37 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11123 OF 2016

¶4

IN FAST/22205/2016

¶5

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION PROJECT STRENGTHENING DIVISION OMERGA, DISTRICT OSMANABAD

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

SHIVAPPA HANUMANT BIRAJDAR AND OTHERS

¶8

Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Shirish S. Sangle Advocate for respondents-original claimants: Mr. N.R. Pawade hf

¶9

Mr. L.C. Patil

¶10

AGP for respondents No. 3 & 4 : Mr. S.J. Salgare

¶11

CORAM : K.K. SONAWANE, J.

¶12

DATED : 13^th DECEMBER, 2017.

¶13

Order :-

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the applicant - Acquiring Body as well as learned counsel for respondents - original claimants and learned AGP for co applicants No. 3 and 4.

¶15

The applicant - Acquiring Body moved the present application for condonation of delay in filing the first appeal against impugned Judgment and Award passed by the learned Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference filed under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. According to learned counsel for the applicant-Acquiring Body, impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Reference Court is erroneous, illegal and is not as per the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Applicant is Body corporate having its independent entity. After procuring the funds for court fees appeal came to be filed, however, there is delay in filing the appeal. According to learned counsel for applicant, delay so caused is not intentional or deliberate, but caused due to compliance of official process.

¶16

The learned counsel for respondents-original claimants submits that there is inordinate delay, which has not been explained satisfactorily, therefore, the same cannot be condoned and prayed for rejection of application.

¶17

2 925-CA-11123-16

¶18

The learned AGP raised objection and submits that application be rejected.

¶19

I have given anxious consideration to the submission of both learned counsel. Considering the nature of the subject-matter and reasons mentioned in the application, I do not find any impediment to allow the application for condonation of delay. The public interest is involved into the matter. It is settled law that liberal and pragmatic approach is essential to be adopted by avoiding pedantic approach while dealing with the application for consideration of delay. Therefore, it is imperative to grant some sort of latitude to the applicant - Acquiring Body to present an appeal by condoning the delay. It would not cause any prejudice or injustice to the respondent. In contrast, it would sub-serve the purpose of substantial justice. Hence, the application for condonation of delay deserve to be allowed. In sequel, the applications stand allowed in terms of prayer clause (B). Delay caused in filing appeals against the impugned Judgment and Award is hereby condoned. Registry to take requisite steps for registration of appeal. Civil application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶20

On registration of appeal, issue notice to the respondents. Mr. Patil, learned counsel waives service of notice for respondentsoriginal claimants and learned AGP waives service of notice for respondents No. 3 to 4.

¶21

Meanwhile, call for record and proceedings from the concerned learned Reference Court.

¶22

List the appeal for admission in due course.

¶23

[ K. K. SONAWANE ] JUDGE

¶24

VSM.

Executive Engineer, Irrigation Project Strengthening Division,Omerga (Now Under M.K.V.D.C. Ltd,Pune v. Shivappa Hanumant Birajdar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Executive Engineer, Irrigation Project Strengthening Division,Omerga (Now Under M.K.V.D.C. Ltd,Pune v. Shivappa Hanumant Birajdar 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

Narendra Popatrao Waghmare Vs Jayashree Narendra Waghmare and Anr.

Rukayyabi Mohammad Iqbal and Ors. Vs Gulab Motiram Badgujar and Ors.

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Osmanabad Thr Gmidc Aurangabad Vs Tukaram Baba Hake and Anr.

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Kalim Wahb Patel and Anr.

New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Yashodabai Ramesh Rathod and Ors.

The Manager Georai Taluka Shetkari Sahakari Ginning and Pressing Karkhana Ltd. Georai Vs the Superintendent Engineer the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd.