Shardabai Prabhakar Jagtap vs the State of Maharashtra through the Collector Jalna and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Shardabai Prabhakar Jagtap vs the State of Maharashtra through the Collector Jalna and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Civil application allowed in terms of prayer clause 'A', i.e., delay of 1716 days condoned, on condition that the applicant is not entitled to interest and statutory benefits for the delayed period and further forfeits 50% of the interest and statutory benefits for the period from the date of filing of the appeal and the civil application until the date of the first order; Office directed to register the first appeals; application disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 1716 days in preferring the first appeal for enhancement of compensation should be condoned. +1 more

Court's answer

There is no material on record to show that the delay in preferring the appeal was deliberate or that the applicant acted with mala fides; this supported condonation of the 1716-day delay.

Ratio / Principle

Because the applicant herself caused considerable delay in soliciting the first order from the Court after filing the appeal and the condonation application, the Court conditioned condonation on her forfeiting interest and statutory benefits for the delayed period and 50% of the interest and statutory benefits for the period from filing of the appeal and application until the first order.

Key takeaways

Factual finding underlying the condition: there was considerable delay attributable to the applicant in obtaining the first order from the Court after filing of the appeal as well as the condonation application.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench (Shailesh P. Brahme, J.): Delay of 1716 days in preferring a first appeal for enhancement of land-acquisition compensation condoned, the Court finding no material to indicate deliberate delay or mala fides by the applicant-claimant. However, noting the applicant's own considerable delay in soliciting the first order from the Court after filing the appeal and the condonation application, condonation was made conditional: the applicant was denied interest and statutory benefits for the delayed period, and additionally deprived of 50% of the interest and statutory benefits for the period between filing of the appeal/application and the passing of the first order. Office directed to register the first appeals; civil application disposed of.

2025:BHC-AUG:16061

1 991 ca 3976.24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

991 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3976 OF 2024 IN

FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 2630 OF 2024

Shardabai Prabhakar Jagtap .. Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents

Shri S. M. Kakde, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri D. B. Bhange, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 24TH JUNE, 2025.

FINAL ORDER :

. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

This application is for condonation of delay of 1716 days caused in preferring first appeal for enhancement of the compensation. The application has been opposed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by filing affidavit in reply.

Applicant is the claimant whose lands are acquired by the respondent/acquiring body. For enhancement of compensation she has preferred appeal, wherein there is delay. Applicant is relying on paragraph Nos. 2 to 10 of the application for condonation of delay. Learned counsel for the applicant submits

2 991 ca 3976.24

that delay is not intentional and there are no malafides on the part of the applicant in preferring the appeal belatedly.

Learned A. G. P. would rely on the affidavit in reply to oppose the application for condonation of delay. He would submit that there is no sufficient explanation and the applicant would not be entitled to the interest even for the delayed period and, therefore, her application needs to be rejected.

Having considered rival submissions of the parties, I find that there is no material on record to indicate that the delay caused in preferring appeal is deliberate and there are any malafides on the part of the applicant in preferring appeal belatedly. Applicant is the agriculturist, who lost her lands and she is praying for enhancement of compensation. She is ready to forego interest and statutory benefits for the delayed period. Besides that, I find that there is considerable delay on her part in soliciting first order from this Court after filing of the appeal as well as application for condonation of delay. These lapses are attributable to her and for which it would be unreasonable to award her interest and statutory benefits. Interest of justice would be sub served by depriving the applicant 50% of the interest and statutory benefit for her lapses.

For the reasons mentioned above, the civil application is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘A’ on condition that the applicant would not be entitled to interest and statutory benefits

3 991 ca 3976.24

for the delayed period as well as 50% of the interest and statutory benefits for the lapses that is from the date of filing of appeal as well as civil application till the date of passing of first order. Office shall register the first appeals. The civil application is disposed of.

[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ]

bsb/June 25