Disposed¶5

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai(Mcgm) v. Abdul Rahim Ghaswala and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Jun 2025IA/8471/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; 57 days; First Appeal (L) No.16058 of 2025; Interim Application No.8471 of 2025; Section 74(1) proviso; 120-day outer limit; Section 69 Award; Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Authority; Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Abdul Rahim Ghaswala; Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction; order dated August 1, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 57 days in filing First Appeal (L) No.16058 of 2025 condoned, subject to removal of all other office objections within two weeks, failing which the Appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court; no order as to costs. ¶5

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai(Mcgm) vs Abdul Rahim… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶5

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 57 days in filing First Appeal (L) No.16058 of 2025 ought to be condoned. +1 more

¶1

Court's answer

There is no impediment in condoning the delay, if any, for the reasons more particularly set out in the Interim Application; the delay in filing the First Appeal is accordingly condoned.

¶3

Ratio / Principle

Even if the period of limitation is calculated from the date of the Award, and not from the date when the same was received by the Appellant, the First Appeal has been filed within the prescribed period of 120 days.

¶3

Key takeaways

Following condonation, the advocates for the Applicant/Appellant were directed to remove all other office objections within two weeks from the date of the order, failing which the Appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court.ratio¶4

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Condonation of delay - Bombay High Court (B.P. Colabawalla & Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ.) disposed of Interim Application No.8471 of 2025 filed by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai seeking condonation of a 57-day delay in filing First Appeal (L) No.16058 of 2025 under Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 against an Award passed under Section 69 by the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Authority. The Court held that even calculating limitation from the date of the Award rather than the date of receipt, the Appeal was filed within the prescribed period of 120 days, and accordingly condoned the delay. Office objections were to be removed within two weeks, failing which the Appeal would stand dismissed without further reference to the Court. No order as to costs.

¶1

17 ia8471-25.doc

¶2

Digitally signed by TRUSHA TRUSHA TUSHAR TUSHAR MOHITE MOHITE Date: 2025.08.01 18:25:39 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.8471 OF 2025 IN FIRST APPEAL (L) NO.16058 OF 2025

¶5

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai .. Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Abdul Rahim Ghaswala and Others. .. Respondents

¶8

Ms.Pallavi Khale i/b Ms.Komal Punjabi, Advocate for the Applicant

¶9

Mr.Pranav S.Nair, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 13.

¶10

Mr.A.R.Patil, Addl.G.P. for the Respondent Nos.14/State.

¶11

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE: AUGUST 1, 2025

¶12

P. C.

¶13

The above Interim Application is filed seeking a condonation of delay of 57 days in filing the above First Appeal.

¶14

The above First Appeal is filed under the provisions of Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Section 74(1) stipulates that the

¶15

Page 1 of 3 AUGUST 1, 2025

¶16

Mohite

¶17

17 ia8471-25.doc

¶18

Requiring Body or any person aggrieved by the Award passed under Section 69 by the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Authority, may file an Appeal to the High Court within 60 days from the date of the Award. The proviso to Section 74(1) stipulates that the High Court may, if it is satisfied that the Appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the Appeal within the aforesaid period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding 60 days. In other words, beyond a total period of 120 days, the High Court has no power to condone the delay.

¶19

In the facts of the present case, we find that even if one has to calculate the period of limitation from the date of the Award, and not from the date when the same was received by the Appellant, even then, the above Appeal has been filed within the prescribed period of 120 days. We therefore, do not find any impediment in condoning the delay, if any, for the reasons more particularly set out in the Interim Application. The delay is accordingly condoned.

¶20

Now that the delay is condoned, the Advocates for the Applicant/ Appellant shall remove all other office objections, if any, within a period of two weeks from today, failing which the above Appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court.

¶21

Page 2 of 3 AUGUST 1, 2025

¶22

Mohite

¶23

17 ia8471-25.doc

¶24

The above Interim Application is disposed of in the aforesaid

¶25

terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.

¶27

[FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.]

¶28

Page 3 of 3 AUGUST 1, 2025

¶29

Mohite

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai(Mcgm) v. Abdul Rahim Ghaswala and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai(Mcgm) v. Abdul Rahim Ghaswala and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Prashant Kevalchand Bhandari vs Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Malegaon and Ors.

Ashok Vidyut Firm vs Income Tax Officer Ward 2(3) Solapur and Ors.

Ramchandra Laxman Jagdale vs Wrsr Power Transmission Ltd. Throu. Sanjivkumar Singh and Ors.

Regional Officer, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation vs Shri. Narendra Dharmaji Mokal and Ors.

Baas Builders Consortium Engineers and Contractors vs the City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd., Mumbai

Celebi Nas Airport Services India Private Limited vs Union of India