Executive Engineer, Medium Project Division, Osmanabad Thr Executive Engineer v. Bhalchandra Kondiba Mule And ORS

1 918-CA-15111-16+1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15111 OF 2016 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 27903 OF 2016 Executive Engineer, Medium Project Division, Osmanabad Through Executive Engineer ...APPLICANT versus Bhalchandra Kondiba Mule and others ...RESPONDENTS .....

Mr. Shirish G. Sangle, Advocate for applicant Mr. S.R. Yadav, AGP for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 .....

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15113 OF 2016 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO. 29700 OF 2016 ...

CORAM : K.K. SONAWANE, J.

DATED : 6th SEPTEMBER, 2017.

Order :- 1.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant-Acquiring Body as well as learned AGP for respondents No. 2 and 3. Despite service of notice none appears for respondents-original claimants in both the applications.

2.

The applicants moved the present applications for condonation of delay in filing the first appeals against impugned Judgment and Award passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad in LAR No. 238 and 244 of 2005. The Reference Court passed the impugned Judgment and Award in the month of November, 2012. According to learned counsel for the applicant, impugned Judgment and Award 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 expenses, the appeal came

2 918-CA-15111-16+1 to be filed. However, there is delay in filing the appeals. According to learned counsel, the delay so caused is not intentional or deliberate, but caused due to compliance of official process. 3.

The learned AGP for respondents No. 2 and 3 submits for suitable orders in the interest of justice.

4.

As referred above, respondents-original claimants remained absent, therefore, no opportunity for hearing them in the present applications is received to this Court. Considering the nature of the subject-matter and reasons mentioned in the application, I do not find any impediment to allow the applications for condonation of delay. The public interest is involved in these matters. In case the applications are rejected no one individual is put in loss but the public funds are at stake. It is settled law that liberal and pragmatic approach is essential to be adopted by avoiding pedantic approach while dealing with the application for consideration of delay. Therefore, I am of the opinion that some sort of latitude is required to be granted to the applicantAcquiring Body to present an appeals by condoning the delay.

It would not cause any prejudice or injustice to the respondents. In contrast, it would sub-serve the interest of justice. Hence, the applications for condonation of delay deserves to be allowed. In sequel, the applications stand allowed in terms of prayer clause (B). Delay caused in filing appeal against the impugned Judgment and Award is hereby condoned. Registry to take requisite steps for registration of appeals and list the matter for further process on 26th September, 2017. 5.

The civil applications are allowed in above terms and stand disposed of.

Sd/- [ K. K. SONAWANE ] JUDGE MTK