Mr. Genba Laxman Pavagi vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 03 and Ors.

State. As regards Respondent No. 2, none appears for Respondent No.1. Acquiring body has been served by learned Counsel for the Applicant by a private service.

¶19

I have heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and gone through the contents of the Application.

¶20

Supreme Court in the judgment of Collector, Land Acquisition,

¶21

1 of 4

¶22

Anand

¶23

CAF 126-2024.doc

¶24

Anantnag and another Vs. Mst. Katji and Others reported in 1987 SC

¶25

1353 , has held that:

¶26

“Every day’s delay must be explained” does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every house’s delay. Every second’s delay ? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.”

¶27

Supreme Court in the case of S. Ganesharaju (Dead) through Lrs

¶28

V. Narasamma (Dead) through Lrs reported in (2013) 11 SCC 341 , more specifically, paragraph Nos. 12 and 13, of the said judgment held that a liberal construction to the cause of delay should be given. The said paragraphs are reproduced herein below:

¶29

The expression “sufficient cause” as appearing in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, has to be given a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. Unless the respondents are able to show malafides in not approaching the court within the period of limitation, generally as a normal rule, delay should be condoned. The trend of the courts while dealing with the matter with regard to condonation of delay has tilted more towards condoning delay and directing the parties to contest the matter on merits, meaning thereby that such technicalities have been given go-by.

¶30

The rules of limitation are not meant to destroy or foreclose the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly.

¶31

Bombay High Court in the judgment of Kamalbai Narasaiyya

¶32

Shrimal and Another Vs. Ganpat Vithalrao Gavare reported in 2007 (1)

¶33

2 of 4

¶34

Anand

¶35

CAF 126-2024.doc

¶36

MH. L.J. 807 , paragraph Nos.13 and 15 has held:

¶37

The factual position is manifestly clear on bare perusal of the application for condonation filed by the petitioners before the learned District Judge. The only relevant statement in the application is thus:

¶38

“The delay caused in preferring the appeal is of six months. The caused delay is not intentional one. The appellants are poor and helpless persons. If the delay is not condoned appellant may cause irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in terms of money. The suit was for recovery of possession and present appellants are tenants. If the delay is not condoned then appellants will become shelterless.”

¶39

The expression “sufficient cause” cannot be erased from section of the Limitation Act by adopting excessive liberal approach which would defeat the very purpose of section 5 of the Limitation Act. There must be some cause which can be termed as a sufficient one for the purpose of delay condonation. I do not find any such “sufficient cause” stated in the application and as such no interference in the impugned order is called for.”

¶40

Considering the facts of the present case and the law laid down in the above Judgments, I am convinced that the present Civil Application deserves to be allowed. The Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) .

¶41

The Civil Application is accordingly disposed of.

¶42

FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 17412 OF 2018

¶43

Heard.

¶44

Admit .

¶45

The Appellant to file private paper-book within a period of six

¶46

3 of 4

¶47

Anand

¶48

CAF 126-2024.doc

¶49

months from today. A copy of the same to be served on other side.

¶50

Soft copy of R & P be sent by the trial Court to the High Court

¶51

within 4 weeks from today. Original R & P should be preserved by the trial Court till further orders of this Court. Original R & P to be sent to the High Court when called for.

¶52

(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)

¶53

4 of 4

¶54

Anand

Mr. Genba Laxman Pavagi v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 03 and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Genba Laxman Pavagi v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 03 and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kamla Jagdish Gharat vs the State of Maharashtra (through the Deputy Collector)

Madhukant Kunwar Vira vs Ab and Co. Global Pvt. Ltd.

Kamlesh Bherumal Jain and Ors. vs Purshottam Vishandas Raheja and Ors.

Pratibha Umesh Aldar vs Umesh Shahuba Aldar

Bhavesh S/O Hasmukhbhai Vasa vs Nisha Bhavesh Vasa

Sidhant Suresh Rastogi vs Aradhana W/O Sidhant Rastogi