Allowed¶39

State of Maharashtra Thr. Executive Engineer and Anr. v. Narayan Bhanudas Pawar and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Mar 2025IA/12972/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condol of delay 306 days; land acquisition; enhanced compensation deposited; 50% withdrawal with accrued interest; usual undertaking; Reference Court award exorbitant and excessive; First Appeal ST No. 24290 of 2023; IA 12972/2024; IA 11448/2025; Narayan Bhanudas Pawar; State of Maharashtra; Bombay High Court Kolhapur Circuit Bench; Shivkumar Dige J.; 17-12-2025.

What did the court decide?

IA 12972/2024: condonation of 306 days' delay in filing the appeal; appeal to be registered. IA 11448/2025: applicants permitted to withdraw 50% of the deposited amount along with accrued interest thereon on furnishing the usual undertaking; both applications allowed and disposed of. ¶39

State of Maharashtra Thr. Executive Engineer and Anr. vs Narayan Bhanudas Pawar and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 306 days in filing First Appeal ST No. 24290 of 2023 by the State of Maharashtra should be condoned. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

The delay of 306 days in filing the appeal is condoned; Interim Application No. 12972 of 2024 is allowed and disposed of, and the Appeal is to be registered.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

Since the applicants' land is already acquired, the applicants are permitted to withdraw 50% of the deposited amount along with accrued interest thereon, on furnishing the usual undertaking; the State's objections are to be considered at the final hearing of the appeal.

¶39

Key takeaways

Express caveat forming part of the order: allowing the 50% withdrawal does not mean the Court is considering the claim made by the respondents before the Reference Court.ratio¶40
The grounds raised by the respondent-State (exorbitant and excessive Reference Court compensation) are deferred for consideration at the time of final hearing of the appeal.obiter¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Kolhapur Circuit Bench), Shivkumar Dige, J., 17 December 2025 — Connected interim applications in First Appeal ST No. 24290 of 2023, a land-acquisition compensation dispute between Narayan Bhanudas Pawar and ors. and the State of Maharashtra. (i) IA 12972/2024: the State's application for condonation of 306 days' delay in filing the appeal was allowed and disposed of, and the Appeal was directed to be registered. (ii) IA 11448/2025: as the applicants' land had been acquired and the entire enhanced compensation stood deposited, the applicants were permitted to withdraw 50% of the deposited amount with accrued interest thereon on furnishing the usual undertaking, with the express caveat that such withdrawal does not signify the Court's consideration of the claim made before the Reference Court. The State's contention that the Reference Court had awarded exorbitant and excessive compensation was left to be examined at the final hearing of the appeal.

¶1

501-11254-25 IA.DOC

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 12972 OF 2024

¶6

¶7

FIRST APPEAL ST NO. 24290 OF 2023

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and anr ….Applicants Vs.

¶9

Narayan Bhanudas Pawar and ors ….Respondents

¶10

WITH

¶11

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 11448 OF 2025 IN FIRST APPEAL ST NO. 24290 OF 2023

¶12

Narayan Bhanudas Pawar and ors ….Applicants

¶13

Vs.

¶14

The State of Maharashtra and anr ….Respondents

¶15

Mr. Vaibhav Gaikwad for the applicant in IA 11448/2025 Mr. S. H. Yadav, AGP for the State in IA 12972/2024

¶16

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 17^th DECEMBER, 2025.

¶17

P.C.

¶18

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 12972 OF 2024:

¶19

Not on board. Taken on board.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the applicant-State. By this

¶21

application, the applicant is seeking condonation of delay of 306 days in filing the appeal.

¶22

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the

Page 1 of 3

Iresh

501-11254-25 IA.DOC

applicant and the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay of 306 days is condoned. The application is allowed and disposed off.

¶27

The Appeal be registered.

¶28

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 11448 OF 2025

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondent-State.

¶30

It is contention of learned counsel for applicant that the land of the applicant is acquired by the respondent-State. The respondentState has deposited entire enhanced amount. The applicant needs the amount for his daily expenses. Hence, requested to allow the application.

¶31

Learned counsel for the respondent-State objected to allow the application on the ground that Reference Court has awarded exorbitant and excessive compensation. Hence, requested to reject the application.

¶32

I have heard both learned counsels. Considering the submissions of both the counsels as well as land of the applicant is already acquired, the grounds raised by the respondent-State can be considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal. Hence, I pass

Page 2 of 3

Iresh

501-11254-25 IA.DOC

following order:

O R D E R

I. The application is allowed.

¶39

II. The applicants are permitted to withdraw 50% amount alongwith accrued interest thereon out of the deposited amount on furnishing usual undertaking.

¶40

III. Allowing 50% withdrawal of amount does not mean that the Court is considering the claim of the respondents made before the Reference Court.

¶41

The application is disposed off in above terms.

¶42

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶43

Digitally signed by IRESH IRESH MASHAL MASHAL Date: 2025.12.2317:08:15 +0530

¶44

Page 3 of 3

¶45

Iresh

State of Maharashtra Thr. Executive Engineer and Anr. v. Narayan Bhanudas Pawar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Maharashtra Thr. Executive Engineer and Anr. v. Narayan Bhanudas Pawar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pratapsinha Dattatraya Pawar vs the State of Maharashtra

The Divisional Manager,the New India Insurance Co.Ltd., Satara vs Hindurao Vishnu Nikam and Ors.

Arif Kale Khan vs State of Maharashtra

Sahil Mohan Mudliyar vs State of Maharashtra

Sahil Krishna Wangade vs State of Maharashtra

Md. Monazir Hassan vs the Union of India and Anr.