Allowed

The Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Division, Jalna Thr Sunil Nishikant Godbole and Ors. v. Sunil Kantilal Jain Thr Attorney Meghraj Ugamraj Jain

Bombay HC7 Dec 2017CA/5656/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed a civil application for condonation of delay in filing a first appeal against a land acquisition award. The court adopted a liberal approach, noting the public interest and the acquiring body's status, and dispensed with the order to allow substantial justice.

What did the court decide?

Condoned delay in filing appeal against the impugned Judgment and Award; applications disposed of accordingly; appeal registration ordered.

The Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Division, Jalna Thr… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

1 4-CA-5656-16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

4 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5656 OF 2016

¶4

IN FAST/9423/2016

¶5

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, JALNA THR SUNIL NISHIKANT GODBO

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

SUNIL KANTILAL JAIN THR ATTORNEY MEGHRAJ UGAMRAJ JAIN

¶8

... Advocate for Applicant : Mr. S.C. Arora AGP for Co applicants No. 2 & 3 : Mr. S.R. Yadav Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Mahesh R. Sonwane

¶9

CORAM : K.K. SONAWANE, J.

¶10

DATED : 07^TH DECEMBER, 2017.

¶11

Order :-

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the applicant - Acquiring Body as well as learned AGP for co applicants No. 2 and 3 and learned counsel for respondent - original claimant.

¶13

The applicant No. 1 - 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 References filed under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. According to learned counsel for the applicantAcquiring 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 No. 1 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.

¶14

The learned counsel for respondent-original claimant submits that there is inordinate delay, which has not been explained

¶15

2 4-CA-5656-16

¶16

satisfactorily, therefore, the same cannot be condoned and prayed for rejection of application.

¶17

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 applications for condonation of delay deserve to be allowed. In sequel, the applications stand allowed in terms of prayer clause (B). Delay caused in filing appeal against the impugned Judgment and Award is hereby condoned. Registry to take requisite steps for registration of appeal. Civil application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶18

On registration of appeal, issue notice to the respondent. Mr. Sonwane, learned counsel waives service of notice for respondent.

¶19

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

¶20

List the appeal for admission in due course.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

[ K. K. SONAWANE ] JUDGE

¶23

MTK.

The Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Division, Jalna Thr Sunil Nishikant Godbole and Ors. v. Sunil Kantilal Jain Thr Attorney Meghraj Ugamraj Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Division, Jalna Thr Sunil Nishikant Godbole and Ors. v. Sunil Kantilal Jain Thr Attorney Meghraj Ugamraj Jain

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

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

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

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

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mujibuddin Mujafaruddin and Ors.

The Maharashtra Krushna Vally Development Corporation Throuh Its Exe Eng Med Project Divn Osmanaba Vs Digambar Shahu Khade and Ors.

The Maharashtra Krushna Vally Development Corporation Throuh Its Exe Eng Med Project Divn Osmanaba Vs Kanik Kondiba Khade and Anr.