Kailas Puna Marathe v. The Special Land Acq. Officer M.I.W. Jalgaon And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 923 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.271 OF 2019 IN FAST/29567/2018 KAILAS PUNA MARATHE

VERSUS

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQ. OFFICER M.I.W. JALGAON AND ANR ...

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Y. R. Neb h/f Mr. Kale Ajeet B. AGP for Respondents: Mr. A. B. Chate Advocate for respondent No.2 : Mr. B. K. Patil ....

CORAM : S. G. DIGE, J.

DATE : 20.09.2022 PER COURT :- Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGP and learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that land of the applicant is acquired by respondent No.2. The compensation awarded to the applicant was very meager hence applicant fled reference petition before the Reference Court at Jalgaon. The reference Court has also awarded meager compensation of Rs. 250/- per Are for jirayat land whereas there was claim of the applicant to grant Rs. 1,000/- per Are. Applicant is being poor agriculturist, after the decision of the Reference Court, applicant could not contact to Advocate and

he was not aware about the procedure about fling appeal for enhancement of amount. Hence there is delay of more than 635 days for fling the appeal. Hence requested to allow the application.

3.

Learned counsel further submits that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ningappa Thotappa Angadi (Dead) through L.Rs. Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Ofcer and others in Civil Appeal No. 9415 of 2019 decision dated 13th December, 2019 has held that while condoning the delay ''equities can be balanced by denying the Appellants' interest for the period for which they did not approach the Court. The substantive right of the Appellants should not be allowed to be defeated on technical ground by taking hypetechnical view of self-imposed limitations.'' Hence requested to allow the application.

4.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that there is no proper explanation given about the delay condonation. Being a poor agriculturist is no ground to condone the delay. The afdavit was sworn in by the applicant in the month of June 2018 but thereafter after 24 days the application was fled. So there is no proper explanation about condonation of delay hence requested to dismiss the application.

5.

I have heard all learned counsel. Admittedly the land of applicant is acquired by respondent No.2. Applicant is seeking enhancement of amount granted by learned Reference Court. Applicant is claiming that he is poor agriculturist and he was not aware about the procedure of fling appeal for enhancement. As per view taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nigappa Thotappa Angadi (supra) that substantive right should not be defeated by taking hpyer technical approach and if interest for delayed period is denied to the applicant, it would meet ends of justice. Hence I pass the following order.

ORDER

(I) Application is allowed.

(ii) Delay of 635 days is condoned.

(iii) Applicant shall not claim interest and statutory beneft for delayed period and shall fle undertaking in that regard.

(iv) Appeal be registered.

(v) Application is disposed of accordingly.

( S.G. DIGE,) JUDGE ysk