Vithal Ramanna Hulsure v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 911 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13165 OF 2021 IN FAST/23817/2021 WITH CA/13180/2021 IN FAST/23898/2021 WITH CA/13181/2021 IN FAST/23882/2021 WITH CA/13178/2021 IN FAST/23853/2021 WITH CA/13175/2021 IN FAST/23888/2021 WITH CA/13170/2021 IN FAST/23855/2021 WITH CA/13173/2021 IN FAST/23892/2021 WITH CA/13177/2021 IN FAST/23896/2021 WITH CA/13176/2021 IN FAST/23867/2021 WITH CA/13179/2021 IN FAST/23876/2021 WITH CA/13172/2021 IN FAST/23878/2021 WITH CA/13169/2021 IN FAST/23860/2021 WITH CA/13174/2021 IN FAST/23857/2021 WITH CA/13168/2021 IN FAST/23862/2021 WITH CA/13171/2021 IN FAST/23872/2021 WITH CA/13167/2021 IN FAST/23851/2021 TUKARAM RAMANNA HULSURE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE COLLECTOR, LATUR AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Sakolkar V. G.

and Mr. Nandagavale H.B.

AGP for Respondents - State : Mr. P. N. Kutti Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. S. B. Patil ...

CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.

DATE : 30.08.2022 PER COURT :

.

Heard rival submissions.

2.

The respective applicants are seeking condonation of delay of 631 days in all these applications. They claimed that the said delay was due to late receipt of compensation amount. The learned AGP as well as learned counsel for Acquiring Body strongly opposed the applications.

3.

However, considering the statutory right of the applicants, the aforesaid period of delay stands condoned subject to condition that the applicants shall not claim any interest for the aforesaid periods of delay. Accordingly, the applications are disposed of. 4.

The appeals be placed for admission after removal of office objections, if any.

(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) JUDGE .....

shp/-