Allowed

The Gmidc Aurangabad Thr the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Osmanabad and Ors. v. Vasant Vishwanath Adarkar

Bombay HC15 Dec 2017CA/9657/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single bench order allowed condonation of delay in filing first appeals against an impugned judgment and award in land acquisition proceedings. The court found that as the applicant is a government agency, it was entitled to reasonable opportunity to ventilate its grievance, and the delay was due to official processes rather than an intent.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 1064 days in filing first appeals against the impugned judgment and award was condoned; civil applications disposed of accordingly.

The Gmidc Aurangabad Thr the Executive… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

1 932-CA-9639-16-D

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9639 OF 2016 IN FAST/18551/2016

¶4

THE GMIDC AURANGABAD THR THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, OSMANABAD.

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

VITHAL KISAN NIKAM

¶7

Advocate for Applicant No.1 : Mr. P. R. Tandale. AGP for Applicants No. 2, 3 : Mr. S. R. Yadav-Lonikar. Advocate for Respondent/s : Mr. M. R. Pawade h/f. Mr. L. C. Patil.

¶8

… WITH CA/9641/2016 IN FAST/18638/2016 WITH CA/9644/2016 IN FAST/18634/2016 WITH CA/9648/2016 IN FAST/18630/2016 WITH CA/9651/2016 IN FAST/18626/2016 WITH CA/9654/2016 IN FAST/18622/2016 WITH CA/9657/2016 IN FAST/18618/2016 WITH CA/9660/2016 IN FAST/18614/2016 WITH CA/9663/2016 IN FAST/18610/2016

¶9

... CORAM : K.K. SONAWANE, J. DATED : 15^TH DECEMBER, 2017.

¶10

Order :-

¶11

Heard learned counsel for applicant- Acquiring Body and learned counsel for respondent (original claimant) as well as learned AGP for respondents No. 2 and 3.

¶12

Perused the applications. Leave to correct the prayer clause.

¶13

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

¶14

2 932-CA-9639-16-D

¶15

The learned AGP for applicants No. 2 and 3 submits for suitable order in the interest of justice.

¶16

The learned counsel for respondent (original claimant) raised objection that there is inordinate delay, which has not been explained satisfactorily, therefore, the same cannot be condoned and prayed for rejection of applications.

¶17

I have given anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides. Admittedly, matters pertain to the land acquisition proceedings involving public funds. The applicant- Acquiring Body is the Government Agency looking after the irrigation projects. In view of nature of the subject matter and the reasons mentioned in the application, I find that reasonable opportunity is essential to be granted to applicant- Acquiring Body to ventilate it's grievance in the Appellate Forum for redressal. Therefore, delay caused for filing First Appeals is required to be condoned. Accordingly, applications for condonation of delay stand allowed in terms of prayer clause 'B'. The delay of 1064 days caused in preferring the First Appeals against impugned Judgment and Award is hereby condoned. The civil applications are disposed of in above terms accordingly. Registry to take requisite steps for further process.

¶18

After registration of appeals, issue notice to respondent/s (original claimant/s).

¶19

Mr. Pawade on instruction of Mr. L. C. Patil, learned counsel waives service of notice for respondent/s (original claimant/s).

¶20

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

¶21

List the appeals for admission in due course.

¶22

rrd.

¶23

[ K. K. SONAWANE ] JUDGE

The Gmidc Aurangabad Thr the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Osmanabad and Ors. v. Vasant Vishwanath Adarkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Gmidc Aurangabad Thr the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Osmanabad and Ors. v. Vasant Vishwanath Adarkar

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

Sandeep Bhausaheb Lokhande Vs Nilesh Sambhajirao Jagtap and Others

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Vishwanth Madhav Motirawe and Others

Bahiru Rangnath Gunjal, Died Thr. L.Rs. Sushila Haribhau Wagh Died Thr Lrs Haribhau and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The Executive Engineer Latur Minor Irrigation Division Latur and Another Vs Sitaram Devrav Chavan

Manoj Sakharam Shinde Vs M.S.R.T.C. Ltd. Thr Its Divisional Controller, Latur

Urmila Janardhan Pawar and Ors. Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd. Aurangabad and Ors.