Allowed

The Executive Engineer Irrigation Project Majbutikaran Division Omerga and Others v. Ahamad Afsar Jani Shamshoddin Rampure

Bombay HC6 Dec 2017CA/2099/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allowed the condonation of a 307-day delay in filing an appeal under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The court adopted a liber al approach given the applicant's status as a government agency, balancing public interest in compensation disputes against the need for procedural regularity.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay of 307 days in filing appeal; appeal perfected for further process.

The Executive Engineer Irrigation Project Majbutikaran… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

7 sr.no. CA 2099.17.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

7 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2099 OF 2017 IN FAST/19353/2014

¶5

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER IRRIGATION PROJECT MAJBUTIKARAN DIVISION OMERGA AND OTHERS

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

AHAMAD AFSAR JANI SHAMSHODDIN RAMPURE

¶8

Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Sujeet G. Karlekar Adv. for Respondent sole: Mr. L.C. Patil

¶9

CORAM : K.K. SONAWANE, J.

¶10

DATE : 6^th December, 2017.

¶11

PER COURT:

¶12

1] Heard learned counsel for the applicant/Acquiring Body and

¶13

learned counsel for the respondent.

¶14

2] Perused the application. Learned Counsel for applicant/s submits that due to official procedure to present an appeal, delay has been caused. He submits that delay is not deliberate and intentional but caused owing to administrative compliance. As such, he prayed to condone the delay.

¶15

3] Learned counsel for the respondent raised objection and submits that delay has not been properly explained and it would be unjust and improper to condone the delay.

¶16

4] I have heard the submission canvassed on behalf of both sides and perused the application as well as the impugned judgment and award against which the applicant Acquiring Body is intending to file an appeal.

¶17

{2}

¶18

7 sr.no. CA 2099.17.odt

¶19

5] The matter pertains to land acquisition proceedings. The learned Reference Court partly allowed the application of the respondent filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The applicant Acquiring Body is intending to agitate the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court on the issue of market value arrived at by the learned Reference Court, which according to Acquiring Body, is exorbitant. It has been contended that after the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court, the Acquiring Body being an independent institution, approached to its counsel as directed by the superior officers and obtained the tentative figure of proposed expenditure for filing an appeal. The applicant Acquiring Body made necessary arrangement of finance for requisite court fees etc., and thereafter preferred the present appeal with application for condonation of delay. The impugned delay was not intentional and deliberate but owing to compliance of official process.

¶20

6] I am of the considered opinion that reasonable opportunity needs to be given to the applicant Acquiring Body to ventilate its grievances in the appellate forum. it is to be noted that the matter pertains to the enhancement of compensation amount under the Land Acquisition Act. The appellant is the Government Agency I.e. Acquiring Body and in view of public interest, it is imperative to extend latitude while dealing with the condonation of delay, by adopting liberal and pragmatic approach. If the appeal/s of the appellant acquiring body is/are not allowed to be presented for further process on the ground of such default of delay, no person is individually affected but, ultimately, the public interest would be at stake. Therefore, I do not find any impediment to allow 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 interest of justice. Hence, the application for condonation of delay deserves to be allowed. In sequel, the application stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (B). Delay of 307 days caused in filing appeal against the impugned

¶21

{3} 7 sr.no. CA 2099.17.odt

¶22

judgment and award is hereby condoned. Registry to take requisite steps for registration of appeal and list the matter for further process.

¶23

7] On registration of appeal, issue notice to respondent. Shri L.C. Patil, Advocate waives notice for respondent sole. Matter be listed for admission in due course.

¶24

[K.K. SONAWANE] JUDGE.

¶25

grt/-

The Executive Engineer Irrigation Project Majbutikaran Division Omerga and Others v. Ahamad Afsar Jani Shamshoddin Rampure

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Executive Engineer Irrigation Project Majbutikaran Division Omerga and Others v. Ahamad Afsar Jani Shamshoddin Rampure

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

Annasaheb Janardhan Satav Vs Ramdas Janardhan Satav and Ors.

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd, Thr Its Legal Manager, Aurangabad Vs Sunita Vasant @ Santosh Jadhav and Ors.

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd, Thr Its Legal Manager, Aurangabad Vs Sunita Vasant @ Santosh Jadhav and Ors.

M I D C through Managing Director Latur Vs Sheshrao Devrao Deshmukh and Ors.

Shewantabai Gangaram Rodekar and Ors. Vs United India Ins Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Saghameshwar Babuappa Hyderabade and Anr. Vs Sunil Madhavrao Mahajan and Anr.