Suresh Raosaheb Kadam v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Collector Jalna And ORS

2025:BHC-AUG:31929 1 17 to 19 & 39 ca 9326.24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 17 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9326 OF 2024 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 18917 OF 2024 Pramod Ramchandra Ambhure .. Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Jalna and others .. Respondents Shri Vitthal D. Bhise, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri S. V. Hange, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. AND 18 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9329 OF 2024 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 18885 OF 2024 Suresh Raosaheb Kadam .. Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Jalna and others .. Respondents Shri Vitthal D. Bhise, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri N. R. Dayma, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 19 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9348 OF 2024 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 18986 OF 2023 Prabhabai Ramchandra Ambhure .. Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Jalna and others .. Respondents Shri Vitthal D. Bhise, Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs. M. N. Ghanekar, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri R. B. Shingare, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3.

2 17 to 19 & 39 ca 9326.24 39 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9328 OF 2024 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 18924 OF 2023 Bharat Namdeorao Ambhure and another .. Applicants

Versus

The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Jalna and others .. Respondents Shri Vitthal D. Bhise, Advocate for the Applicants. Mrs. M. N. Ghanekar, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

DATE : 19TH NOVEMBER, 2025.

FINAL ORDER :

.

Heard both sides.

2.

Applicants seek to condone delay ranging from 4564 days to 6077 days caused in preferring the first appeals. 3.

For the reasons stated in the applications the delay is sought to be condoned. My attention is adverted to the order of the Coordinate Bench passed on 25th April, 2025 in Civil Application No. 4751 of 2024 condoning the delay of 5807 days. It is submitted that the Coordinate Bench allowed the appeals by common judgment dated 29th April, 2025. On the ground of parity delay is sought to be condoned.

4.

Learned counsel appearing for the acquiring body and the

3 17 to 19 & 39 ca 9326.24 learned A. G. P. would oppose the applications. 5.

In the similarly situated matters not only delay was condoned, which was having same magnitude, those applications were partly allowed also. I find no oblique motive of the applicants/claimants to prefer appeals belatedly. The averments of applications have not been traversed. There are no lapses on the part of the applicants in securing first order after filing of the applications.

6.

For the reasons stated in the civil applications and in view of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench, I deem it appropriate to condone the delay, however, subject to condition that the applicants shall not be entitled to interest and statutory benefits for the delayed period. The delay stands condoned. Office shall register the first appeals. The civil applications are disposed of.

[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ] bsb/Nov. 25