Gulab Rupchand Vanjari v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9092 OF 2019 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 22340 OF 2018 Gulab Rupchand Vanjari Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & others Respondents Mr. A. B. Kale, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. M. M. Nerlikar, AGP for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. A. B. Dhongade, Advocate for respondent No. 4. CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.

DATE :6th FEBRUARY, 2023.

PER COURT :

1.

This is an application for condonation of delay of 360 days in fling frst appeal.

2.

Heard learned advocate for the applicant, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 to 3 and learned counsel for respondent No. 4acquiring body. 3.

It is the contention of the claimant/applicant that due to fnancial diffculties, the appeal for enhancement of compensation could not be fled in time. The other diffculties faced by him which

- 2 - were the cause for non-fling of the present appeal in time are elaborated in the application.

4.

Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that in facts of the case and in the interest of justice, delay caused in fling the appeal be condoned. The said contention is strongly opposed by learned AGP and learned counsel for the acquiring body. 5.

It is settled position of law by the orders passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in case of land acquisition cases, the Court cannot take pedantic approach for condonation of delay and substantive rights of land owners cannot be allowed to be defeated on technical grounds. In this regard reference can be made to the judgments in the matter of Dhiraj Singh vs. State of Haryana and others reported in (2014) 14 SCC 127 and Imratlal and others vs. Land Acquisition, Collector, and others reported in (2014) 14 SCC 133.

6.

In a case where there is compulsory acquisition of the land, the claimant is entitled to receive adequate compensation. If he is aggrieved by the order passed by any authority, he has a right to

- 3 - prefer appeal against such order and to seek enhancement in accordance with law. This right cannot be denied on technicalities. The applicant herein has provided reason for not preferring appeal in time, which in absence of any malafdes deserves to be accepted. However, at the same time, appellant cannot be allowed to take advantage of the delay and respondents cannot be burdened with liability to pay interest on enhanced amount for the said period. In the circumstances, equity can be balanced by denying any amount of interest to the claimant on enhanced compensation, if any, till the date of fling of appeal. Hence the order :-

ORDER

i) Application is allowed.

ii) Delay of 360 days caused in preferring appeal stands condoned.

iii) Appeal be registered.

iv) Applicant is not entitled to receive any amount of interest on enhanced compensation upto the date of fling of appeal, if he succeeds in the appeal. v) Civil application stands disposed of.

( R. M. JOSHI) Judge dyb