The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division vs Ananta… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2026)

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division vs Ananta… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay of about six years in filing the First Appeal (FA-ST 30792 of 2023) arising from the District Court Award. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the applicant was a party to the proceedings and was heard before the Award was passed, in law the date of the judgment (04 October 2017) itself must be treated as the date on which the applicant had knowledge of the impugned judgment and Award.

Ratio / Principle

No satisfactory explanation was given for the delay between 04 October 2017 (date of judgment/Award) and 29 September 2020 (date of applying for the certified copy).

Key takeaways

No sufficient explanation was given for the period from March 2022 till October 2023; the general reason relied upon did not satisfactorily explain the delay during these periods.ratio¶¶18
Sufficient cause for condonation of delay having not been shown, no case was made out for condoning the delay and the delay-condonation application deserved rejection.ratio¶¶21
As a result of the rejection of the delay-condonation application, the First Appeal cannot survive for consideration.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Amit Borkar, J.), P.C.: Interim Application No. 389 of 2024 accompanying First Appeal (ST) No. 30792 of 2023 (The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division v. Ananta Laxman Thule) sought condonation of a delay of about six years in filing the First Appeal against the District Court judgment and Award dated 04 October 2017 in Land Reference No. 46 of 2009 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Court held that, as the applicant was a party to the proceedings and was heard before the Award, in law the date of the judgment itself must be treated as its date of knowledge; that no satisfactory explanation was offered for the gap between 04 October 2017 and 29 September 2020 (when the certified copy was applied for, delivery following only on 08 December 2020), notwithstanding the claimed exclusion of March 2020 to February 2022; and that no sufficient explanation was given for the period from March 2022 till October 2023, the reason stated being general in nature. Concluding that sufficient cause for condonation of delay was not shown, the Court rejected the application; as a result the First Appeal cannot survive for consideration, and both interim applications were disposed of accordingly.

1-FA-ST-30792-23-F+.doc

Sayali

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SAYALI DEEPAK UPASANI

Digitally signed by SAYALI DEEPAK UPASANI Date: 2026.06.16 16:04:26 +0530

FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.- 30792 OF 2023 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.-389 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 390 OF 2024

The Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Division

… Appellant

V/s. Ananta Laxman Thule … Respondents

Mr. Ashish Gabhale, i/b Jay and Co., for Appellant. Mr. A. R. Patil, Additional GP for State.

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : JUNE 16, 2026

P.C.:

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.-389 OF 2024

By this application, the applicant has requested that the delay of about six years in filing the First Appeal be condoned. The appeal arises from the Award passed by the District Court in Land Reference No. 46 of 2009 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

1

1-FA-ST-30792-23-F+.doc

The applicant seeks condonation of the delay mainly on the ground that after the certified copy became available and was delivered on 08 December 2020, the matter was considered by the legal department. A decision was then taken to file an appeal. According to the applicant, some additional time was required to complete the necessary official and procedural formalities before filing the First Appeal.

The applicant has also claimed the benefit of exclusion of the period from March 2020 to February 2022. However, the record shows that the judgment and Award were passed on 04 October 2017. It is not disputed that the applicant was a party to the proceedings and was heard before the Award was passed. Therefore, in law, the date of the judgment itself must be treated as the date on which the applicant had knowledge of the impugned judgment and Award. It further appears that the application for a certified copy was made only on 29 September 2020. Even if the period from March 2020 until the date of applying for the certified copy is excluded from consideration, the applicant has not given any satisfactory explanation for the delay between 04 October 2017 and 29 September 2020. Similarly, no sufficient explanation has been given for the period from March 2022 till October 2023. The reason stated in paragraph 8 is general in nature and does not satisfactorily explain the delay during these periods. In these circumstances, this Court finds that sufficient cause for condonation of delay has not been shown. Hence, no case is made out for condoning

2

1-FA-ST-30792-23-F+.doc

the delay and the application deserves to be rejected.

As a result, the First Appeal cannot survive for consideration.

Consequently, the Interim Applications also do not survive and are disposed of accordingly.

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

3