Allowed

Dharamraj Amruta Gaikwad v. the State of Maharashtra through the Deputy Collector

Bombay HC16 Jun 2022IA/1055/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This interim application sought condonation of a 2 year and 268 day delay in filing a first appeal concerning land compensation. The High Court found sufficient cause for the delay and condoned it, directing the appeal for admission. No interest was claimed.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay of 2 years and 268 days and listing of the appeal for admission on 30th June 2022.

Dharamraj Amruta Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2022)

Y.S.Patil

14-IA-1055-2021.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1055 OF 2021 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 7493 OF 2021

¶6

Dharamraj Amruta Gaikwad .. Applicant/ Appellant Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents

¶7

*******

¶8

Mr. Sachin Gite for the Applicant/Appellant. Ms. Chaitrali Deshmukh for the Respondents.

¶9

*******

¶10

CORAM: ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.

¶11

DATE : 16^th JUNE 2022

¶12

P.C. :-

¶13

By this Application, the Applicant/Appellant, who is an Agriculturist is seeking condonation of delay 2 years and 268 days in filing of Appeal against Judgment and Order dated 26^th March 2018, passed by Learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Nashik in Land Reference Nos. 35 of 2015 and 39 of 2015, whereby enhancement of compensation of acquired land has been partly allowed.

1/3

Y.S.Patil

14-IA-1055-2021.doc

Learned Counsel Mr. Sachin Gite for the Applicant/ Appellant draws attention of this Court to paragraphs No. 2 to 5 of the application to explain the delay. Learned Counsel submits that the applicant is an agriculturist and was not aware about the impugned Judgment and order, nor was he aware about the provisions of law. He submits that only after the Applicant visited the Office of his Advocate, he came to know that there was an error in the Award of compensation for the land acquired from him.

¶19

3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent

¶20

No. 2 place her formal objection to the condonation of delay sought by the Applicant and submits to the orders of this Court stating that the Applicant should not claim any interest for the delayed period to be condoned in the matter.

¶21

Learned Counsel for the Applicant/Appellant on instructions makes a statement that his client will not claim any interest for the delayed period. Statement is accepted.

¶22

Having perused the said application and having heard

2/3

Y.S.Patil

14-IA-1055-2021.doc

learned Counsel for the parties , this Court is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the delay.

¶28

In this view of the matter, delay of 2 years and 268 days is hereby condoned.

¶29

The Application stands disposed of.

¶30

List the Appeal for admission on 30^th June 2022.

¶31

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

¶32

3/3

Dharamraj Amruta Gaikwad v. the State of Maharashtra through the Deputy Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharamraj Amruta Gaikwad v. the State of Maharashtra through the Deputy Collector

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

Manikaran Power Limited vs Quenext Decision Science Technology Pvt. Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Manikaran Power Limited vs Quenext Decision Science Technology Pvt. Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Modi Rubber Limited vs Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction and Ors.

Shri. Sanjay Narayn Surve Vs the Additional Collector through Govt. Pleader and Ors.

Valjibhai Ranshibhai Varchand and Others Vs the Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai through the General Manager

Bhurabhai Bijalbhai Varchand @ Ahir and Others Vs the Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai through the General Manager