State of Maharashtra (through the Executive Engineer) vs Sudhir Ramrao Mane and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

State of Maharashtra (through the Executive Engineer) vs Sudhir Ramrao Mane and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both interim applications allowed and disposed of: (i) IA 13144/2024 - delay of 306 days in filing First Appeal (ST) No. 25167 of 2023 condoned and appeal directed to be registered; (ii) IA 11257/2025 - applicants permitted to withdraw 50% of the deposited amount with accrued interest on furnishing usual undertaking, without prejudice, the State's grounds being reserved for the final hearing of the appeal.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 306 days in filing First Appeal (ST) No. 25167 of 2023 by the State should be condoned. +1 more

Court's answer

The delay of 306 days in filing the appeal is condoned and Interim Application No. 13144 of 2024 is allowed and disposed of.

Ratio / Principle

The First Appeal (ST) No. 25167 of 2023 is to be registered.

Key takeaways

In IA 11257/2025, the applicants are permitted to withdraw 50% of the deposited amount alongwith accrued interest thereon, on furnishing the usual undertaking.ratio¶37
Allowing 50% withdrawal of the amount does not mean that the Court is considering the claim of the respondents made before the Reference Court.ratio¶38
The grounds raised by the respondent-State (that the Reference Court awarded exorbitant and excessive compensation) are left to be considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal, which is why partial withdrawal was permitted despite the objection.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur (Shivkumar Dige, J.), order dated 17 December 2025, disposing of two interim applications in First Appeal (ST) No. 25167 of 2023 concerning a land-acquisition compensation dispute. (1) In IA 13144/2024, the State's application for condonation of a 306-day delay in filing the appeal was allowed and the appeal directed to be registered. (2) In IA 11257/2025, the landowners (Sudhir Ramrao Mane and Anr.) were permitted to withdraw 50% of the deposited enhanced compensation together with accrued interest thereon on furnishing the usual undertaking. The Court clarified that permitting such withdrawal does not amount to considering the respondents' claim made before the Reference Court, and the State's objection that the Reference Court had awarded exorbitant and excessive compensation was left to be considered at the final hearing of the appeal.

151-IA-11257-2025 (C).DOC

IRESH MASHAL

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13144 OF 2024

IN

FIRST APPEAL(ST) NO. 25167 OF 2023

State Of Maharashtra (through The Executive Engineer) ...Applicant Versus Sudhir Ramrao Mane And Anr. ...Respondents

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 11257 OF 2025 IN

FIRST APPEAL(ST) NO. 25167 OF 2023

Sudhir Ramrao Mane And Anr. ...Applicants Versus

State Of Maharashtra (through The Executive Engineer) ...Respondents

Mr. Vaibhav R. Gaikwad in IA 11257/2025 Mr. S. S. Chaudhari AGP for the State in IA 13144/2024

Digitally signed by IRESH MASHAL Date: 2025.12.22 15:48:59 +0530

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

P.C.

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13144 OF 2024:

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant-State. By this

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

Page 1 of 3

Iresh

151-IA-11257-2025 (C).DOC

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay of 306 days is condoned. The application is allowed and disposed of.

The Appeal be registered.

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 11257 OF 2025:

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

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.

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.

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

Page 2 of 3

Iresh

151-IA-11257-2025 (C).DOC

considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal. Hence, I pass following order:

O R D E R

I. The application is allowed.

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

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

The application is disposed off in above terms.

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

Page 3 of 3

Iresh