Allowed¶74

Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Co. Thr Ex. Engineer, Osmanabad v. Pandit Babu Mali and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Nov 2025CA/694/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

condonation of delay; 1254 days; 1261 days; first appeal admitted; land acquisition appeal; Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Co. Ltd.; Ex. Engineer Irrigation Project Division Omerga; Collector Osmanabad; State of Maharashtra; Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench; Shailesh P. Brahme; FAST/659/2022; FAST/502/2022; FAST/662/2022; Civil Application No. 9568 of 2024; Civil Application Nos. 688, 689, 694, 695, 696, 697, 2138 of 2022; Civil Application Nos. 7296, 7308, 7309, 7474 of 2024; 2025:BHC-AUG:31671; public exchequer; no oblique motive; listed on 25.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay of 1254 to 1261 days granted; civil applications allowed and delay stands condoned; first appeals admitted, notice waived for Respondents-State, and matter listed on 25.11.2025. ¶74

Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Co. Thr Ex. Engineer, Osmanabad Vs Pandit Babu Mali and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Condonation of delay of 1254 to 1261 days granted; civil applications allowed and delay stands condoned; first appeals admitted, notice waived for Respondents-State, and matter listed on 25.11.2025.

¶74

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 1254 to 1261 days in pursuing the first appeals by the applicant-acquiring body should be condoned. +1 more

¶70

Court's answer

No reply has been filed to controvert the submissions in the condonation applications; there is no reason to infer any oblique motive on the part of the acquiring body for pursuing the appeal belatedly, as it is safeguarding the interests of the public exchequer.

¶73

Ratio / Principle

For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned; the civil applications are allowed and the delay stands condoned.

¶74

Key takeaways

The first appeals are admitted; learned AGP waives service of notice for Respondents-State; Record and Proceeding is to be called for, print is dispensed with, and the matter is listed on 25.11.2025.ratio¶FIRST APPEALS heading (unnumbered)

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), Shailesh P. Brahme, J. (18.11.2025) - Batch of civil applications in First Appeals FAST/659/2022, FAST/502/2022 and FAST/662/2022 between claimants (Babu Shivappa Mali (died) thr LRS Pradip Pandit Raut Mali; Pandit Babu Mali thr LRS Lalita Pandit Raut; Anusaya w/o Babu Mali thr LRS; Shamal Pandurang Kshirsagar) and the acquiring body Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Co. Ltd. and the State of Maharashtra through Collector, Osmanabad. The applicant-acquiring body sought condonation of delay of 1254 to 1261 days in pursuing the appeals; respondents opposed. No reply was filed to controvert the application; the Court found no oblique motive, observing that the applicant-acquiring body was safeguarding the interests of the public exchequer. Civil Application Nos. 688, 697 and 694 of 2022 were allowed and delay stood condoned. The first appeals were admitted; learned AGP waived service for Respondents-State; call for Record and Proceeding; print dispensed with; matter listed on 25.11.2025.

¶1

2025:BHC-AUG:31671

¶2

( 1 ) 50 CA 9568 OF 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

50 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9568 OF 2024 IN FAST/659/2022

¶5

BABU SHIVAPPA MALI (DIED) THR LRS PRADIP PANDIT RAUT MALI VERSUS

¶6

MAHARASHTRA KRISHNA VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD., THR EX. ENGINEER, IRRI. PROJECT DIV. OMERGA

¶7

Mr. P. B. Rakhunde, Advocate for Applicants/claimants Mrs. M. N. Ghanekar, AGP for Respondents-State

¶8

Mr. A. R. Lukhe h/f. Mr. A. S. Shelke, Advocate for Respondent-Acquiring body Mr. A. S. More, Advocate for Applicants in CA Nos.7308/2024, 7296/2024, 7474/2024

¶9

WITH

¶10

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 694 OF 2022 IN FAST/502/2022

¶11

MAHARASHTRA KRISHNA VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CO. THR EX. ENGINEER, OSMANABAD

¶12

VERSUS

¶13

PANDIT BABU MALI AND ORS

¶14

WITH

¶15

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 695 OF 2022 IN FAST/502/2022

¶16

MAHARASHTRA KRISHNA VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CO. THR EX. ENGINEER, OSMANABAD

¶17

VERSUS

¶18

PANDIT BABU MALI DIED THR LRS LALITA PANDIT RAUT AND ORS

¶19

WITH

¶20

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2138 OF 2022

¶21

IN FAST/662/2022

¶22

ANUSAYA W/O BABU MALI (DIED) THR LRS PRADIP S/O PANDIT RAUT

¶23

VERSUS

¶24

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR, OSMANABAD AND

¶25

ORS

¶26

WITH

¶27

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7308 OF 2024 IN FAST/502/2022

¶28

SHAMAL PANDURANG KSHIRSAGAR

¶29

VERSUS

¶30

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR, OSMANABAD

¶31

WITH

¶32

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 688 OF 2022 IN FAST/659/2022

¶33

MAHARASHTRA KRISHNA VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD., THR EX. ENGINEER, IRRI. PROJECT DIV. OMERGA

¶34

VERSUS

¶35

BABU SHIVAPPA MALI (DIED) THR LRS PRADEEP AND ORS

¶36

WITH

¶37

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 689 OF 2022 IN FAST/659/2022

¶38

MAHARASHTRA KRISHNA VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD., THR EX. ENGINEER, IRRI. PROJECT DIV. OMERGA

¶39

VERSUS

¶40

BABU SHIVAPPA MALI (DIED) THR LRS PRADEEP AND ORS

¶41

WITH

¶42

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 697 OF 2022 IN FAST/662/2022

¶43

MAHARASHTRA KRISHNA VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD., THR EX. ENGINEER, IRRI. PROJECT DIV. OMERGA

¶44

VERSUS

¶45

ANUSAYA W/O BABU MALI AND ORS

¶46

WITH

¶47

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 696 OF 2022 IN FAST/662/2022

¶48

MAHARASHTRA KRISHNA VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD., THR EX.

¶49

ENGINEER, IRRI. PROJECT DIV. OMERGA VERSUS

¶50

ANUSAYA W/O BABU MALI AND ORS

¶51

WITH

¶52

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7309 OF 2024

¶53

IN FAST/502/2022

¶54

PANDIT BABU MALI DIED THR LRS LALITA PANDIT RAUT AND ORS VERSUS

¶55

MAHARASHTRA KRISHNA VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CO. THR EX. ENGINEER, OSMANABAD

¶56

WITH

¶57

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7296 OF 2024 IN FAST/659/2022

¶58

SHAMAL PANDURANG KSHIRSAGAR

¶59

VERSUS

¶60

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR, OSMANABAD AND ORS

¶61

WITH

¶62

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7474 OF 2024 IN FAST/662/2022

¶63

SHAMAL PANDURANG KSHIRSAGAR

¶64

VERSUS

¶65

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR, OSMANABAD AND ORS

¶66

CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 18.11.2025

¶67

PER COURT :-

¶68

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 688 OF 2022 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 697 OF 2022 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 694 OF 2022

¶69

( 4 ) 50 CA 9568 OF 2024

¶70

. Applicant seeks condonation of delay which is ranging from 1254

¶71

to 1261 days.

¶72

The respondents would oppose the submissions and the claim for condonation of delay.

¶73

No reply has been filed to controvert the submissions made in the application. There is no reason to infer any oblique motive on the part of the acquiring body for pursuing the appeal belatedly. The applicant-acquiring body is safeguarding the interests of the public exchequer. For the reasons stated in the application, it is desirable to condone the delay.

¶74