The Executive Engineer, N.M.C.Division, Vaijapur v. Balnath Kisan Badak And Others

1 11-CA-3886-16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 11 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3886 OF 2016 IN FAST/353/2016 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, N.M.C.DIVISION, VAIJAPUR

VERSUS

BALNATH KISAN BADAK AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Vilas R. Sonwalkar Adv.for Respondents -original claimants : Mr. Abhishek Hazare AGP for respondents: No. 2 and 3 ...

WITH CA/3888/2016 IN FAST/362/2016 WITH CA/3891/2016 IN FAST/342/2016 WITH CA/3893/2016 IN FAST/336/2016 WITH CA/3895/2016 IN FAST/333/2016 WITH CA/3903/2016 IN FAST/339/2016 WITH CA/3905/2016 IN FAST/348/2016 WITH CA/3907/2016 IN FAST/356/2016 WITH CA/3909/2016 IN FAST/359/2016 WITH CA/3911/2016 IN FAST/345/2016 WITH CA/3913/2016 IN FAST/365/2016 CORAM : K.K. SONAWANE, J.

DATED : 28th NOVEMBER, 2017.

Order :- 1.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant - Acquiring Body as well as learned counsel for respondents - original claimants and learned AGP for respondents No. 2 and 3.

2.

The applicant - Acquiring Body moved the present applications for condonation of delay in filing the first appeals against impugned Judgment and Award passed by the learned Reference Court in Land Acquisition References filed under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. According to learned counsel for the applicant-Acquiring Body, impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Reference Court is erroneous, illegal and is not as per the provisions of Land Acquisition

2 11-CA-3886-16 Act, 1894. Applicant is Body corporate having its independent entity. After procuring the funds for court fees appeals came to be filed, however, there is delay in filing the appeals. According to learned counsel for applicant, delay so caused is not intentional or deliberate, but caused due to compliance of official process. 3.

The learned counsel for respondents-original claimants submits that there is inordinate delay, which has not been explained satisfactorily, therefore, the same cannot be condoned and prayed for rejection of applications.

4.

The learned AGP raised objection and submits that applications be rejected.

5.

I have given anxious consideration to the submission of both learned counsel. Considering the nature of the subject-matter and reasons mentioned in the applications, I do not find any impediment to allow the applications for condonation of delay. The public interest is involved into the matter. It is settled law that liberal and pragmatic approach is essential to be adopted by avoiding pedantic approach while dealing with the application for consideration of delay. Therefore, it is imperative to grant some sort of latitude to the applicant - Acquiring Body to present an appeal by condoning the delay. It would not cause any prejudice or injustice to the respondent. In contrast, it would sub-serve the purpose of substantial justice. Hence, the applications for condonation of delay deserve to be allowed. In sequel, the applications stand allowed in terms of prayer clause (B). Delay caused in filing appeals against the impugned Judgment and Award is hereby condoned. Registry to take requisite steps for registration of appeal. Civil applications stand disposed of accordingly. 6.

On registration of appeal, issue notice to the respondents. Mr. Hazare, learned counsel waives service of notice for respondentsoriginal claimants and learned AGP waives service of notice for respondents No. 2 and 3.

3 11-CA-3886-16

7. Meanwhile, call for record and proceedings from the concerned learned Reference Court.

8. List the appeals for admission in due course. Sd/- [ K. K. SONAWANE ] JUDGE MTK.