Regional Manager, M.I.D.C., Jalgaon v. Digambar Ramdas Khadke (Dead) Thr Lrs Krushna And ORS

1 908-CA-7931-19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7931 OF 2019 IN FAST/15728/2019 REGIONAL MANAGER, M.I.D.C., JALGAON

VERSUS

DIGAMBAR RAMDAS KHADKE [DEAD] THROUGH L.RS. DECEASED HEIRS : KRUSHNA DIGAMBAR KHADKE AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Shrirang S. Dande AGP for Respondents No.6 and 7 : Mr. Y. G. Gujrathi ...

CORAM : K.K. SONAWANE, J.

DATED : 28th JANUARY, 2020.

ORDER :- Heard learned counsel for the applicant - Acquiring Body and learned AGP for respondents No. 6 and 7. Despite service of notice, no one else appeared on behalf of respondents No.1 to 5 (original claimants). Perused the application and other relevant documents produced on record.

2.

The applicant - Acquiring Body moved present applications for condonation of delay of 299 days caused in filing the first appeal against impugned Judgment and Award passed by the learned Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference No. 270 of 2010 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 Act, 1894. Applicant is Body corporate having its independent entity. After procuring the funds for court fees, appeal came to be filed, however, there is delay in filing the appeal. According to learned counsel for applicant-Acquiring Body, delay so caused is not intentional or deliberate, but, caused due to compliance of official process.

3.

The learned AGP for respondents No. 6 and 7 submits that suitable orders may be passed.

2 908-CA-7931-19 4.

As referred supra, despite service of notice, no one has caused appearance on behalf of respondents-original claimants, therefore, opportunity is not received for hearing to them. In view of the nature of subject matter, I proceed further to adjudicate the application for condonation of delay on merit in the interest of justice. 5.

I have given anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of learned counsel for Acquiring Body. Considering the nature of the subject-matter and reasons mentioned in the application, I do not find any impediment to allow the application 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 respondents. In contrast, it would sub-serve the purpose of substantial justice. Hence, the application for condonation of delay deserve to be allowed.

In sequel, the Civil Application stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (B). Delay of 299 days caused in filing first appeal against the impugned Judgment and Award is hereby condoned. Registry to take requisite steps for registration of appeal. Civil application is disposed of accordingly.

6.

On registration of appeal, issue notice to the respondents. Learned AGP waives service of notice for respondent No.6 and 7. 7.

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

8.

After compliance of procedural formalities, list the first appeal for admission in due course.

Sd./- [ K. K. SONAWANE ] JUDGE rrd