Allowed¶38

The State of Maharashtra through the Executive Engineer and Anr. v. Nanasaheb Pandurang Pawale and Anr.

Bombay HC17 Dec 2025IA/13150/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay 306 days; land acquisition; enhanced compensation; Reference Court award; withdrawal of deposited amount; 50% withdrawal with accrued interest; usual undertaking; First Appeal (ST) No. 25212 of 2023; State of Maharashtra v. Nanasaheb Pandurang Pawale; Bombay High Court Circuit Bench Kolhapur; Shivkumar Dige, J.; interim applications IA 13150/2024 and IA 11251/2025; without-prejudice interim withdrawal pending appeal.

What did the court decide?

(i) Delay of 306 days in filing the appeal by the State condoned; appeal to be registered; (ii) Applicants permitted to withdraw 50% of the deposited amount along with accrued interest thereon on furnishing the usual undertaking; both interim applications allowed and disposed of. ¶38

The State of Maharashtra through the Executive Engineer and Anr. vs Nanasaheb Pandurang Pawale and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 306 days in filing the appeal by the State should be condoned. +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

The delay of 306 days in filing the appeal is condoned and Interim Application No. 13150 of 2024 is allowed and disposed of.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The Appeal is to be registered.

¶24

Key takeaways

The applicants are permitted to withdraw 50% of the deposited amount along with accrued interest thereon, on furnishing the usual undertaking.ratio¶36
Allowing the 50% withdrawal does not mean that the Court is considering the claim made before the Reference Court (i.e., the withdrawal is without prejudice to the appeal).ratio¶37
The grounds raised by the respondent-State (that the Reference Court awarded excessive compensation) are left to be considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur (Shivkumar Dige, J.), by order dated 17 December 2025, disposed of two interim applications in First Appeal (ST) No. 25212 of 2023 arising from a land acquisition compensation award: (i) In Interim Application No. 13150 of 2024, the State of Maharashtra's delay of 306 days in filing the appeal was condoned and the appeal was directed to be registered; (ii) In Interim Application No. 11251 of 2025, the applicant landowners (Nanasaheb Pandurang Pawale and Anr.) were permitted to withdraw 50% of the deposited enhanced compensation along with accrued interest thereon on furnishing the usual undertaking, with a clarification that allowing the withdrawal does not mean the Court is considering the claim made before the Reference Court. 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.

¶1

148-IA-11251-2025 (C).DOC

¶2

IRESH MASHAL

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13150 OF 2024

¶7

¶8

FIRST APPEAL(ST) NO. 25212 OF 2023

¶9

The State Of Maharashtra Through The Executive Engineer And Anr. ...Applicant Versus Nanasaheb Pandurang Pawale And Anr. ...Respondents

¶10

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 11251 OF 2025 IN

¶11

FIRST APPEAL(ST) NO. 25212 OF 2023

¶12

Nanasaheb Pandurang Pawale And Anr. ...Applicants Versus The State Of Maharashtra Through The Executive Engineer And Anr. ...Respondents

¶13

Mr. Vaibhav R. Gaikwad in IA 11251/2025 Ms. P. S. Rane AGP for the State in IA 13150/2024

¶14

Digitally signed by IRESH MASHAL Date: 2025.12.22 15:49:00 +0530

¶15

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

¶16

P.C.

¶17

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13150 OF 2024:

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

Page 1 of 3

¶21

Iresh

¶22

148-IA-11251-2025 (C).DOC

¶23

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 off.

¶24

The Appeal be registered.

¶25

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 11251 OF 2025:

¶26

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

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

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

¶30

Page 2 of 3

¶31

Iresh

¶32

148-IA-11251-2025 (C).DOC

¶33

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

¶34

O R D E R

¶35

I. The application is allowed.

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

The application is disposed off in above terms.

¶39

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶40

Page 3 of 3

¶41

Iresh

The State of Maharashtra through the Executive Engineer and Anr. v. Nanasaheb Pandurang Pawale and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra through the Executive Engineer and Anr. v. Nanasaheb Pandurang Pawale and Anr.

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

Kiran Rajabhau Jawale vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Chetan Raju Gaikwad @ Chaitanya Raju Gaikwad vs the State of Maharashtra

Vijay Vilas Randive vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Safiuddin Mohd Sharif Khan vs State of Maharashtra

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

Mandar Chandrahas Khadilkar vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.