Allowed¶22

The Executive Engineer, Seena Kolegaon Project Paranda, Taluka- Paranda, Dist. Osmanabad v. Dharma Bandu Shinde and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Apr 2025CA/12969/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; 1632 days; Civil Application Nos. 12969, 10941 and 10939 of 2024 in FAST/1840, FAST/1848 and FAST/1855 of 2024; Land Acquisition Act; section 4 notification; section 11 award; interest; Reference Court award; administrative exigencies; Executive Engineer Seena Kolegaon Project Paranda, Paranda, Osmanabad; Dharma Bandu Shinde; State Of Mah.Thr.Sub.Divisional vs Kailash Shiva Rangari, 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457; High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad; S. G. Chapalgaonkar, J.; decided April 01, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 1632 days in filing the appeal/s condoned; appeals to be registered and placed for admission before the Court after three weeks. ¶22

The Executive Engineer, Seena Kolegaon Project Paranda… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

2025:BHC-AUG:9893

¶2

ca 12969.24+.odt

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

60 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12969 OF 2024 IN FAST/1840/2024

¶6

The Executive Engineer, Seena Kolegaon Project Paranda, Taluka- Paranda, Dist. Osmanabad

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Dharma Bandu Shinde And Ors

¶9

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Rajale Gulab B. AGP for Respondents: Mr. V S Badakh

¶10

WITH

¶11

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10941 OF 2024 IN FAST/1848/2024 WITH

¶12

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10939 OF 2024 IN FAST/1855/2024

¶13

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. Dated : April 01, 2025

¶14

PER COURT :-

¶15

Heard Mr. Rajale, learned counsel appearing for the applicants.

¶16

The applicant seeks to condone the delay of 1632 days caused in filing the appeal/s against the award passed by the Reference Court.

¶17

Mr. Rajale submits that, in fact, limited issue is raised in this appeal as regards to grant of interest from the date of notification under section 4, instead of from the date of award passed under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, which is covered by judgment in case of State Of Mah.Thr.Sub.Divisional vs Kailash Shiva Rangari , reported in

¶18

2 ca 12969.24+.odt

¶19

2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457 . He further invites attention of this Court to the reasons as stated in the application. Perusal of the reasons shows that delay has been occasioned on administrative exigencies. The applicant has not derived any advantage by making the delay. The reasons as stated in the application are not controverted by the respondents inspite of service of notice.

¶20