Executive Engineer, Sina Kolegaon Project Division, Paranda Under The M.K.V.D.C. Ltd, Pune v. Vijaykumar Narayan Patil And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6364 OF 2017 IN FIRST APPEAL [STAMP] NO. 8491 of 2017 Executive Engineer, Sina Kolegaon Project Division, Paranda (Under Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation Ltd.,Pune) .. Applicant versus Vijaykumar Narayan Patil and others .. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6360 OF 2017 IN FIRST APPEAL [STAMP] NO. 8496 OF 2017 Executive Engineer, Sina Kolegaon Project Division, Paranda (Under Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation Ltd.,Pune) .. Applicant versus Vasudeo Laximan and others .. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6362 OF 2017 IN FIRST APPEAL [STAMP] NO. 8485 OF 2017 Executive Engineer, Sina Kolegaon Project Division, Paranda (Under Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation Ltd.,Pune) .. Applicant versus Vitthal Vinayak Patil and others .. Respondents

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6358 OF 2017 IN FIRST APPEAL [STAMP] NO. 8289 OF 2017 Executive Engineer, Sina Kolegaon Project Division, Paranda (Under Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation Ltd.,Pune) .. Applicant versus Vijaykumar Narayan Patil and others .. Respondents --- Mr. S. G. Sangle, Advocate for applicants Mr Babasaheb A. Dhengle, Advocate for respondents-claimants Mr. A. M. Phule, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for respondent 2 CORAM :

SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J DATE :

13th April, 2018 ORDER :

1.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.

Learned counsel for appellant - acquiring body refers to contents of civil applications and submits that the delay has occurred for the reasons contained in the same and under the circumstances, seeks condonation of delay in filing first appeals. He further submits that delay is neither deliberate nor intentional nor any particular benefit is derived by acquiring body from the same. 3.

He refers to a few of the orders passed by this court in similar circumstances and further submits that delay therein had been far more than as involved in present applications. He further for justifying

delay condonation refers to decisions of the supreme court in the cases of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. Mst. Katiji, reported in 1987 SC 1353, and Dhiraj Singh (dead) through legal representatives and others vs. State of Haryana and others, reported in (2014) 14 SCC 127. 4.

Learned counsel Mr. Dhengle for respondents - claimants although purports to strongly oppose, has not been in a position to question veracity of the contents of the applications for condonation of delay nor is in a position to disprove the same by producing any tangible material before this court.

5.

In the circumstances, having regard to the contents and reasons given in the applications, it would be expedient to allow applications. 6.

Civil applications are accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (B). Delay is condoned.

7.

Applications are disposed of.

SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JUDGE pnd