The Ex. Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation (L.M.I) Division Latur And ANR v. Jaising Laxman Chavan

1 928-CA-9954-19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 928 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9954 OF 2019 IN FAST/17076/2019 THE EX. ENGINEER, LATUR MINOR IRRIGATION (L.M.I) DIVISION LATUR AND ANR

VERSUS

JAISING LAXMAN CHAVAN ...

Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Sujeet G. Karlekar AGP for Respondents-original claimants : Mr. Mahesh S. Patil ...

WITH CA/9956/2019 IN FAST/17467/2019 WITH CA/9958/2019 IN FAST/17490/2019 WITH CA/9960/2019 IN FAST/17451/2019 WITH CA/9962/2019 IN FAST/17480/2019 WITH CA/9964/2019 IN FAST/17476/2019 WITH CA/9966/2019 IN FAST/17498/2019 WITH CA/9968/2019 IN FAST/17494/2019 WITH CA/9970/2019 IN FAST/17456/2019 WITH CA/9972/2019 IN FAST/17461/2019 WITH CA/9974/2019 IN FAST/17486/2019 .....

CORAM : K.K. SONAWANE, J.

DATED : 05th MARCH, 2020.

ORDER :- 1.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants.

2.

Mr. Mahesh Patil, learned counsel submits that he has instructions to appear on behalf of respondent/s-original claimant/s in Civil Applications No. 9958, 9959, 9962 and 9963 of 2019 and undertakes to file Vakalatnama in the office.

3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant - Acquiring Body and learned counsel for respondent/s - original claimant/s. 4.

The applicants - Acquiring Body moved the present applications for condonation of delay 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-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.

2 928-CA-9954-19 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 intentional or deliberate, but caused due to compliance of official process. 5.

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.

6.

I have given anxious consideration to the submission 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 respondent. 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 applications stand allowed in terms of prayer clause (B). Delay caused in filing appeals against the impugned Judgment and Award is hereby condoned. Registry to take requisite steps for registration of appeal. Civil applications stand disposed of accordingly. 7.

On registration of appeal, issue notice to the respondents. Mr. Patil, learned counsel waives service of notice for respondentsoriginal claimants.

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

9. List the appeals for admission in due course. Sd/- [ K. K. SONAWANE ] JUDGE MTK