The State Of Maharashtra And ANR. v. Dattatraya Hari Patil

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.608 OF 2017 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.41796 OF 2003 The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

...Applicants Vs Dattatraya Hari Patil ... Respondent AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.708 OF 2017 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.41800 OF 2003 The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

...Applicants Vs Shri Yeshwant Daulu Patil (Deceased by his Legal Heirs)

1) Nanubai Y. Patil & Ors.

... Respondents AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.710 OF 2017 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.41810 OF 2003 The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

...Applicants Vs Shankar Rama Magdum ... Respondent ...

Ms. Tanaya Goswami, Additional Government Pleader for the Applicants.

Shivgan 1/3

CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE J.

DATE : JANUARY 5, 2022.

P.C. :

Heard the learned AGP for the State.

These applications are moved by the State of Maharashtra seeking condonation of two years and hundred days' delay occurred st in preferring First Appeals against the judgment and award dated 31 March, 2001 passed in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.41/1992, 43/1992 and 44/1992 passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Kolhapur. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act th August, 1983. The Special Land Acquisition Officer was issued on 11 th March, 1988. On 31 st March, 2001, Land passed an award on 30 th January, Acquisition References were decided. It appears, on 18 2002, the District Government Pleader, Kolhapur opined that it was not fit case to prefer an appeal against the award passed in aforesaid th references. Yet, the State of Maharashtra issued Resolution on 25 August, 2003 authorising the Government Pleader to file an appeal. As such, appeals were filed in November, 2003 accompanied by Shivgan 2/3

applications seeking condonation of delay. Although, the award in st March, 2001, the State Land Acquisition Reference was passed on 31 took the decision to prefer an appeal in 2003. It also appears that though proposal was received by the Law & Judiciary Department in March, 2003, decision to file an appeal was taken in August, 2003. There is no explanation on record as to why decision could not be taken soon after receiving the proposal from the Land Acquisition Officer. That even otherwise, fact cannot be ignored that the lands in question were acquired in 1988.

In consideration of the facts stated above, in my view, the State has not shown 'sufficient cause' to condone the delay of 2 years and 100 days occurred in preferring the First Appeals. Civil Applications are dismissed.

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.) Shivgan 3/3