Aruna Parashram Gunjal v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS

(1) 49 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12885 OF 2016 IN FAST/24334/2016 WITH CA/11904/2016 IN FAST/24330/2016 WITH CA/12886/2016 IN FAST/24332/2016 WITH CA/12887/2016 IN FAST/24341/2016 WITH CA/12888/2016 IN FAST/24339/2016 WITH CA/12890/2016 IN FAST/24316/2016 WITH CA/12892/2016 IN FAST/24309/2016 WITH CA/12893/2016 IN FAST/19102/2016 WITH CA/12894/2016 IN FAST/28255/2016 WITH CA/12895/2016 IN FAST/19092/2016 WITH CA/12896/2016 IN FAST/28249/2016 DATTU SUNDARNATH GUNJAL Advocate for Applicant : Mr.Kulkarni Mukul S. AGP for Respondent State: Mr. P.G.Borade Mr. S.T.Shelke, Adv., for respondent no.3.

50 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12904 OF 2016 IN FAST/23947/2016 WITH CA/12897/2016 IN FAST/23945/2016 WITH CA/12898/2016 IN FAST/27892/2016

(2) WITH CA/12899/2016 IN FAST/24326/2016 WITH CA/12900/2016 IN FAST/24320/2016 WITH CA/12901/2016 IN FAST/26804/2016 WITH CA/12902/2016 IN FAST/19149/2016 WITH CA/12903/2016 IN FAST/24302/2016 WITH CA/12905/2016 IN FAST/19100/2016 WITH CA/12906/2016 IN FAST/24300/2016 WITH CA/12907/2016 IN FAST/19098/2016 WITH CA/12908/2016 IN FAST/19096/2016 WITH CA/12909/2016 IN FAST/19094/2016 WITH CA/12910/2016 IN FAST/24306/2016 ARUN SAHEBRAO GUNJAL THR HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDERSAHEBRAO RAMBHAU GUNJAL 51 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12914 OF 2016 IN FAST/19128/2016 WITH CA/12911/2016 IN FAST/19130/2016 WITH CA/12912/2016 IN FAST/19142/2016 WITH

(3) CA/12913/2016 IN FAST/19137/2016 NAVNATH RAOSAHEB GUNJAL CORAM : P.R. BORA, J.

Dated: June 27, 2017 PER COURT :- 1.

Mr. S.T.Shelke, Learned Counsel for the acquiring body, tendered across the Bar affidavit in reply of respondent no.3, the same is taken on record.

2.

Learned Counsel Shri Shelke waives service for respondent no.3 in CA No. 12903/2016 and CA No.12905/2016. Service complete.

3.

In all these matters delay of average 600 days has occurred in filing the present appeals by the original claimants. Respondent no.3 has filed affidavit in reply in one of the matter ( CA No.12885/2016 in FAST No.24334/2016) for opposing applications for condonation of delay. Mr. S.T.Shelke, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.3, submits that the affidavit filed in the said matter be treated as affidavit in all these matters. 4.

Shri Mukul Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that though the applicants were dissatisfied

(4) with the amount of compensation enhanced by the Reference Court, could not approach this Court within the stipulated period of limitation for the reason that they were lacking the necessary funds for purchasing Court fee stamps and take the further necessary steps for filing these appeals by approaching Advocate of the High Court. Learned Counsel submitted that though execution proceedings were filed by the applicants, with great difficulty they could recover the amount from the acquiring body. In April, 2016, the amount was deposited in the respective accounts of the applicants and only thereafter the appellants started preparing for filing the present appeals. Learned Counsel further submitted that drought situation for consecutive 2/3 years was the another great hurdle for the applicants. Learned Counsel submitted that substantial grounds are raised by the applicants in exception to the award passed by the Reference Court and, as such, the applicants need to be given an opportunity to agitate their appeals on merits. Learned Counsel, therefore, prayed for condonation of delay.

5.

Shri Shelke, learned Counsel for respondent no.3, opposed for condonation of delay. Learned Counsel submitted that the financial crunch or poverty cannot be a ground for condonation of delay. Learned Counsel further submitted that the delay of huge period has occurred in filing the appeals for which there is no sufficient explanation submitted by the appellants. Learned Counsel placed reliance on the following judgments in

(5) support of his contentions:

(1) 1999 (1) ALL MR 63 (Bipin H.Doshi Vs. Jawaharlal Prajapati & ors) (2) AIR 1998 SC 2276 (P.K.Ramchandran v. State of Kerala and another) (3) (2013) 14 SCC 81) ( Basawaraj and another Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer) 6.

I have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the applicants as well as the respondents. There cannot be a dispute about the law laid down in the judgments relied upon by Shri Shelke, learned Counsel for respondent no.3. The discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case. As has been held by the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Basawaraj and another vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, cited supra, sufficient cause cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the parties. From the reasons which are assigned by the applicants, it is evident that neither they were negligent in prosecuting their right of appeal nor it can be said that they were inactive.

According to me, lack of financial resources can certainly be a cause for occurrence of delay in approaching the Court.

(6) them. It does not appear to me that any mala fides can be attributed on the part of the applicants for approaching late to this Court in filing the appeals. It appears to me that the applicants have made out sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The appellants need to be given an opportunity to agitate their matters on merits. Hence, the following order:

ORDER

1.

Delay caused in filing the Appeals is condoned. 2.

It is, however, clarified that if the appellants succeed in the appeals and consequently, the amount of compensation is enhanced by this Court, the applicants shall not be entitled for the interest of the period of delay on the enhanced amount of compensation.

3.

The Appeals be registered in accordance with law. Civil Applications for condonation of delay stand disposed of. 4.

After registration of the appeals, issue notice to the respondents in the appeals returnable after six weeks. Shri Shelke, learned Counsel, waives service for for respondent no.3 in all these appeals. Learned A.G.P. waives service for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Service complete. Call for R & P. Place the matters for admission after six weeks. ( P.R. BORA, J. )