The Ex. Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division Latur Thr G.M.I.D.C, Aurangabad v. Arun Gangaram Gutte And ORS
1 43-CA- 9153-19-d-ab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9153 OF 2019 IN FAST/26717/2018 THE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, LATUR THR G.M.I.D.C., AURANGABAD
VERSUS
VIKRAM NAGORAO GUTTE AND OTHERS ...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Sudhir G. Bhalerao Advocate for Respondents-claimants : Mr. N. D. Kendre AGP for Respondents - State and SLAO : Mr. P. M. Kulkarni ...
WITH CA/9155/2019 IN FAST/26714/2018 WITH CA/9161/2019 IN FAST/26702/2018 WITH CA/9163/2019 IN FAST/26705/2018 WITH CA/9165/2019 IN FAST/26708/2018 ...
CORAM : K.K. SONAWANE, J.
DATED : 10th FEBRUARY, 2020.
ORDER :- Heard learned counsel for the applicant - Acquiring Body and learned counsel for respondents-claimants as well as learned AGP for respondents- State of Maharashtra and Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO). Perused the applications and other relevant documents produced on record.
2.
The applicant - Acquiring Body moved present applications for condonation of delay caused in filing the first appeals against impugned Judgment and Award passed by the learned 3nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, in reference petitions filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. According to learned counsel for the applicant-Acquiring Body, impugned Judgment and Award passed by the learned Reference Court is erroneous, illegal and is not as per the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The applicant is Body corporate having its independent entity. After procuring the funds for court fees, appeals came to be filed, however, there is delay in filing the appeals. According to learned counsel for applicant-Acquiring Body, delay so caused is not intentional or deliberate, but, caused due to compliance of official process.
2 43-CA- 9153-19-d-ab 3.
Learned counsel for respondents-original claimants raised objections that the inordinate and huge delay caused for filing first appeals has not properly explained by the applicants. He requested to reject the applications. Learned AGP for respondents- State of Maharashtra and SLAO submits that suitable orders may be passed. 4.
I have given anxious consideration to the submission advanced on behalf of learned counsel for applicant-Acquiring Body. Considering nature of the subject-matter and reasons mentioned in the applications, I do not find any impediment to allow the application for condonation of delay. The public interest is involved into the matter. It is settled law that liberal and pragmatic approach is essential to be adopted by avoiding pedantic approach while dealing with the applications for consideration of delay. Therefore, it is imperative to grant some sort of latitude to the applicant- Acquiring Body to present an appeal by condoning the delay. It would not cause any prejudice or injustice to the respondents. In contrast, it would sub-serve the purpose of substantial justice.
Hence, the applications for condonation of delay deserve to be allowed. In sequel, the Civil Applications are allowed in terms of prayer clause (B). Delay caused in filing first appeals against the impugned Judgment and Award is hereby condoned. Registry to take requisite steps for registration of appeals. The Civil applications are disposed of, accordingly. 5.
On registration of appeals, issue notice to the respondents. Mr. N. D. Kendre, learned counsel waives service of notice for respondents-claimants, whereas, learned AGP waives service of notice for respondents-State of Maharashtra and SLAO. 6.
Meanwhile, call for record and proceedings from the concerned learned Reference Court.
7.
After compliance of procedural formalities, list the first appeals for admission in due course.
Sd./- [ K. K. SONAWANE ] JUDGE rrd