The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Project Majbutikar Division, Omerga And Others v. Ravan Hussain Gaikwad
1 22 CA-7749-16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7749 OF 2016 IN FAST/12959/2016 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION PROJECT MAJBUTIKARN DIVISION, OMERGA AND OTHERS
VERSUS
PRABHAKAR VAIJINATH BHOSALE ...
Advocate for Applicant No.1 : Mr. S. G. Karlekar. AGP for Applicants No.2, 3 : Mr. S. R. Yadav-Lonikar. Advocate for Respondents : Mr. A. B. Kale.
...
WITH CA/7751/2016 IN FAST/13293/2016 WITH CA/7753/2016 IN FAST/13301/2016 WITH CA/7755/2016 IN FAST/13296/2016 WITH CA/7757/2016 IN FAST/13265/2016 WITH CA/7759/2016 IN FAST/13258/2016 WITH CA/7761/2016 IN FAST/13304/2016 WITH CA/7763/2016 IN FAST/13275/2016 ...
CORAM : K.K. SONAWANE, J.
DATED : 21ST NOVEMBER, 2017.
Order :- Heard Mr. S. G. Karlekar, learned counsel for applicantAcquiring Body and Mr. S. R. Yadav, learned AGP for State of Maharashtra as well as Mr. Kale, learned counsel for respondents (original claimants).
2.
Perused the applications.
These applications for condonation of 881 day's delay caused for filing First Appeals against the impugned Judgment and Award passed by learned Reference Court in land acquisition references filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. According to learned counsel for applicantAcquiring Body, delay caused for filing First Appeal is not intentional or deliberate, but it was caused due to compliance of procedural formalities. He alleged that an exorbitant compensation amount for the lands under acquisition granted by the learned Reference Court, therefore, applicant - Acquiring Body is intending to agitate the same in the Appellate Forum. In case, delay is not condoned, it would cause great loss to the Acquiring Body. Hence, he prayed to condone the delay.
2 22 CA-7749-16 3.
In rebuttal, learned counsel for respondents-claimants submits that there is inordinate delay, which has not been explained satisfactorily, therefore, the same may not be condoned. 4.
Admittedly, the matters pertain to land acquisition proceedings involving public funds. It is alleged that, learned Reference Court has awarded exorbitant compensation amount in favour of respondent-original claimant. The applicant- Acquiring Body is the Government Agency. The delay has been caused due to the compliance of official process and for budgetary allocation to incur the court expenses. In such circumstances, there is no impediment to condone the delay. In case, delay is not condoned on such technical ground, no one individual would be affected, but the public interest would be at stake. Moreover, it is rule of law that, while dealing with the application for condonation of delay, the liberal and pragmatic approach is required to be adopted by avoiding pedantic approach.
In such circumstances and reasons mentioned in the applications, the delay caused for filing First Appeals deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, civil applications for condonation of delay stand allowed in terms of prayer clause 'A'. The delay caused in preferring the First Appeal against impugned Judgment and Award is hereby condoned. Registry to take requisite steps for further process. 5.
After registration of appeal, issue notice for final hearing of appeal at the admission stage to respondent/s-original claimant/s. Mr. Kale, learned counsel waives service of notice for respondent/s-original claimant/s. Meanwhile, call for record and proceedings from the concerned Reference Court. After receipt of record and proceedings, list the matters in due course.
6.
Accordingly, civil applications in above terms stand disposed of.
[ K. K. SONAWANE ] JUDGE rrd.