The G.M.I.D.C. Aurangabad Thr The Exe Engineer, Minor Irrigation Div. Osmanabad And ORS v. Premnath Shankar Birajdar

1 923-CA-9333-16-D

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9333 OF 2016 IN FAST/17413/2016 THE G.M.I.D.C. AURANGABAD THR THE EXE ENGINEER, MINORIRRIGATION DIV. OSMANABAD A

VERSUS

JAYKUMAR WAMANRAO JOSHI AND ANR ...

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. P. R. Tandale.

AGP for Applicants No. 2, 3 : Mr. B. V. Virdhe. Advocate for Respondents (original claimants) : Mr. A.B.Kale with Mr.B.K.Pawar.

...

WITH CA/9336/2016 IN FAST/17964/2016 WITH CA/9340/2016 IN FAST/17987/2016 WITH CA/9343/2016 IN FAST/17976/2016 WITH CA/9348/2016 IN FAST/18006/2016 WITH CA/9351/2016 IN FAST/18000/2016 WITH CA/9356/2016 IN FAST/17994/2016 WITH CA/9359/2016 IN FAST/18015/2016 WITH CA/9362/2016 IN FAST/18011/2016 WITH CA/9365/2016 IN FAST/18030/2016 WITH CA/9369/2016 IN FAST/18026/2016 WITH CA/9373/2016 IN FAST/18019/2016 ...

CORAM : K.K. SONAWANE, J.

DATED : 5TH JANUARY, 2018.

Order :- Heard learned counsel for applicant- Acquiring Body and learned counsel for respondent (original claimant) as well as learned AGP for applicants No. 2 and 3.

2.

Perused the applications and relevant documents placed on record. 3.

The applicant-Acquiring Body moved present applications for condonation of delay caused 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, impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Reference Court is erroneous, illegal and is not as per the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The 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

2 923-CA-9333-16-D intentional or deliberate, but it was caused due to compliance of official process. Therefore, he prayed to condone the delay. 4.

The learned AGP for applicants No. 2 and 3 submits for suitable order in the interest of justice.

5.

The learned counsel for respondents (original claimants) raised objection that the satisfactory reasons for such inordinate and huge delay caused for filing first appeal have not been properly explained by the applicant. He requested to reject the applications. 6.

I have given anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides. Admittedly, matters pertain to the land acquisition proceedings involving public funds. The applicant- Acquiring Body is the Government Agency looking after the irrigation projects. In view of nature of the subject matter and the reasons mentioned in the application, I find that reasonable opportunity is essential to be granted to applicantAcquiring Body to ventilate it's grievance in the Appellate Forum for redressal. Therefore, delay caused for filing First Appeals is required to be condoned. Accordingly, applications for condonation of delay stand allowed in terms of prayer clause 'B'. The delay caused in preferring the First Appeals against impugned Judgment and Award is hereby condoned. The civil applications are disposed of in above terms accordingly. Registry to take requisite steps for further process.

7.

After registration of appeals, issue notice to respondents (original claimants).

8.

Mr. Kale with Mr. Pawar, learned counsel waive service of notice for respondent/s (original claimant/s). 9.

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

10.

List the matters for final hearing at the stage of admission in due course.

[ K. K. SONAWANE ] JUDGE rrd.