Abasaheb Asaram Bidwe v. The State Of Mah And ORS
1 925 CA-13234-12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13234 OF 2012 IN FAST/20600/2012 ABASAHEB ASARAM BIDWE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAH AND OTHERS ...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr.P. A. Bhosale h/f. Mr. A. B. Kale. AGP for Respondents No.1,2 : Mr. B. V. Virdhe. Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. S. C. Arora. ...
CORAM : K.K. SONAWANE, J.
DATED : 02ND NOVEMBER, 2017.
Order :- 1.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. Perused the application.
2.
According to learned counsel for applicant-original claimant, the so-called delay caused for filing First Appeal against impugned Judgment and Award passed in Land Acquisition Reference No. 50 of 2004, was not intentional and deliberate, but, it was caused due to lack of legal knowledge about filing of appeal in the High Court. The original claimant is illiterate person. Due to poor financial condition, applicantoriginal claimant could not approach to this Court for filing present appeal. After procuring requisite funds for obtaining certified copies and expenses to file the appeal, the applicant-original claimant has preferred the present appeal. There is an every hope of success in the appeal.
In case, delay is not condoned, it will cause prejudice to the applicant-original claimant, therefore, applicant-original claimant prayed to condone the delay. Moreover, the learned counsel for applicant- original claimant submits that the applicant-original claimant will not claim statutory benefits as well as amount of interest as laid down in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the period of delay sought to be condoned, in case of success of appeal on merit.
2 925 CA-13234-12 3.
The learned AGP for respondent-State raised objection and submits that there is inordinate delay, which is not explained in proper manner, therefore, application be rejected.
4.
After giving anxious consideration to the submission canvassed on behalf of the both sides, it appears that, matter pertains to the determination of market value of the acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
5.
Considering the nature of the subject matter and reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, I do not find any impediment to condone the delay. It is settled law that, liberal and pragmatic approach is essential to be adopted by avoiding pedantic approach while dealing with the application for condonation of delay. The applicant is the poor agriculturist and rustic person, residing in the remote area. There is sufficient cause to condone the delay. It would not cause any prejudice and injustice to the respondents. In contrast, it would sub-serve the purpose for substantial justice. In addition, the applicant (original claimant) has shown his willingness/ inclination that he will not claim statutory benefits as mentioned above. In such circumstances, by imposing aforesaid fetter of waiver of statutory benefits on the part of applicant-appellant (original claimant), there would not be any impediment to condone the delay. The application for condonation of delay deserves to be allowed.
6.
In sequel, application stands allowed. The delay caused to present the appeal against the impugned Judgment and Award stands condoned subject to condition that applicant-appellant shall not claim statutory benefits as well as amount of interest as laid down in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the delayed period allowed to be condoned, in case, any enhanced compensation is awarded by this Court after adjudication of appeal on merit.
7.
Pursuant to aforesaid waiver of statutory claim, the applicantappellant shall furnish undertaking to that effect and place it on record of the appeal to enable this Court to take note of the same, while decision of the appeals on merit. The civil application is allowed in
3 925 CA-13234-12 aforesaid terms and stand disposed of. Registry to take requisite steps for further process in due course.
8.
After registration of appeal, issue notice to respondents. 9.
Learned AGP waives service of notice for respondents No.1 and 2- State. Mr. S. C. Arora, learned counsel waives service of notice for respondent No. 3 - Acquiring Body.
10.
Meanwhile, call for record and proceedings from the concerned reference Court.
[ K. K. SONAWANE ] JUDGE rrd.