Ex. Engineer, M.I.D.C., Jalgaon v. Lilawati Suka Patil And ORS
1 928-CA-7933-19-d
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7933 OF 2019 IN FAST/16017/2019 EX. ENGINEER, M.I.D.C., JALGAON
VERSUS
CHUNILAL DAULAT PATIL AND ORS ...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Shrirang S. Dande Advocate for Respondents-original claimants : Mr. Ajeet B. Kale AGP for Respondents - State and SLAO : Mr. R. B. Bagul ...
WITH CA/7936/2019 IN FAST/16047/2019 WITH CA/7938/2019 IN FAST/16082/2019 WITH CA/7940/2019 IN FAST/16077/2019 WITH CA/7944/2019 IN FAST/16073/2019 WITH CA/7946/2019 IN FAST/16060/2019 WITH CA/7948/2019 IN FAST/16068/2019 WITH CA/7950/2019 IN FAST/16043/2019 WITH CA/7952/2019 IN FAST/16052/2019 WITH CA/7954/2019 IN FAST/16030/2019 WITH CA/7956/2019 IN FAST/16038/2019 WITH CA/7958/2019 IN FAST/16024/2019 WITH CA/7961/2019 IN FAST/16087/2019 ...
CORAM : K.K. SONAWANE, J.
DATED : 28th JANUARY, 2020.
ORDER :- Heard learned counsel for the applicant - Acquiring Body and learned counsel for respondents-original claimants as well as learned AGP for respondents - State of Maharashtra and Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO). Perused the applications and other relevant documents produced on record.
2.
The applicant - Acquiring Body moved present applications for condonation of delay of 410 days caused in filing the first appeals against impugned Judgment and Award passed by the learned Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference Petitions 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, appeals came to be filed, however, there is delay in filing the appeals. 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 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.
2 928-CA-7933-19-d 4.
The learned AGP submits that suitable orders may be passed. 5.
I have given anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf 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 respondents. 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 Civil Applications stand allowed in terms of prayer clause (B). Delay of 410 days caused in filing first appeals against the impugned Judgment and Award is hereby condoned. Registry to take requisite steps for registration of appeals. Civil applications stand disposed of accordingly.
6.
On registration of appeals, issue notice to the respondents. Mr. Ajeet B. Kale, learned counsel waives service of notice for respondentsoriginal claimants, whereas, learned AGP waives service for respondents-State of Maharashtra and SLAO.
7. Meanwhile, call for record and proceedings from the concerned learned Reference Court.
8.
After compliance of procedural formalities, list the proceedings of first appeals for admission in due course.
Sd./- [ K. K. SONAWANE ] JUDGE rrd