Allowed

Agidibai Rama Tawar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Dec 2021CA/4151/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a civil application for condonation of a 4349-day delay in filing a first appeal in a land acquisition matter, relying on a prior order condoning delay in connected matters. The applicant was directed to waive interest for the delayed period.

What did the court decide?

The civil application is allowed; the applicant must waive statutory benefits and interest for the delayed period and furnish an undertaking to that effect.

Agidibai Rama Tawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1 916-CA-4151-2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

916 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4151 OF 2021

¶4

IN FAST/5180/2020

¶5

AGIDIBAI RAMA TAWAR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

¶6

Advocate for Applicant : Ms S.A. Kale h/f Mr Ajeet B. Kale AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 : Mr A.M. Phule

¶7

CORAM : SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J. DATE : 3^rd DECEMBER, 2021

¶8

PER COURT :

¶9

It is an application for condonation of delay moved by the original claimant/applicant.

¶10

Heard Ms Kale, learned counsel holding for Mr Ajit Kale, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and Mr A.M. Phule, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2

¶11

None present for respondent No. 3/acquiring body though notice is duly served.

¶12

There seems to be delay of 4349 days in preferring the first appeal.

¶13

Ms Kale, learned counsel for the applicant submits that this Court was pleased to condone the delay earlier in connected matter vide Civil application No. 2032/2010 in First Appeal Stamp No. 3196/2010 with connected matters vide order dated 22.03.2013. she further submits that

¶14

2 916-CA-4151-2021

¶15

the above referred matters were referred for amicable settlement to the National Lok Adalat and accordingly, those matters have been settled in the National Lok Adalat. This matter is also going to be referred to the Lok Adalat for settlement.

¶16

Mr Phule, learned AGP for the State/Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 strongly opposed to condone the delay. He submits that there is inordinate delay in preferring the appeal. No satisfactory reasons are assigned for condodnation of delay.

¶17

Ms Kale, learned counsel for the applicant seeks leave to file a copy of the order on record passed in Civil Application No. 2032/2010 in First Appeal Stamp No. 3196/2010 with connected matters. Leave granted.

¶18

On going through the copy of the order passed in Civil Application No. 2032/2010 in First Appeal Stamp No. 3196/2010 with connected matters, my learned Brother (Hon’ble Shri Justice S.P. Deshmukh) vide order dated 22.03.2013 was pleased to condone the delay. The present appeal is also arising out of the same award and project. I do not see any reason to take different view. The delay needs to be condoned in view of the earlier order passed by my learned Brother in Civil Application No. 2032/2010 in First Appeal Stamp No. 3196/2010. By taking the same view, this application needs to be allowed.

¶19

3 916-CA-4151-2021

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(I) The Civil Application is hereby allowed in terms of prayer clause (B).

¶22

(II) The applicant/original claimant shall not claim statutory benefits and interest under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the delayed period which is condoned today.

¶23

(III) The applicant/original claimant shall furnish undertaking to that effect with the Registrar (Judicial).

¶24

(IV) The Registry to make scrutiny of the appeal after furnishing such undertaking by the applicant/original claimant and it be numbered and placed it before the Lok Adalat after necessary compliance.

¶25

[ SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J. ]

¶26

mta

Agidibai Rama Tawar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Agidibai Rama Tawar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Executive Engineer Osmanabad Medium Project Division Osmanabad and Ors. Vs Mittu Saudagar Thorat

Mittu Saudagar Thorat Thr G.P.A. Ganesh Mitthu Thorat Vs the Executive Engineer Osmanabad Medium Project Division Osmanabad and Ors.

The Ex. Engineer, (Minor Irrigation) Division, Thr Lift Irrigation Div. Osmanabad and Ors. Vs Tukaram Bhagwan Mundhe and Anr.

Gaffar Abdul Razzak Shaikh and Anr. Vs Vishal Vithalrao Pawar and Ors.

Gopal Krushnaji Kalamkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Laxman Ravji Chinchole Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.