Nathu Champati Tarpe (Died) Thr Lrs Anusayabai And ORS v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13470 OF 2018 IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 29586 OF 2018 Nathu Champati Tapre (Died) Through L.Rs.

Anusayabai Nathu Tarpe and others ... Applicants.

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents.

....

Mr. Vijay B. Patil, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. S.N. Kendre, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Sham B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.3. ....

CORAM : SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J DATE : 16th SEPTEMBER, 2020 PER COURT:- 1.

It is an application for condonation of delay moved by the applicants / original claimants by taking aid of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

2.

Mr. Vijay B. Patil, learned Advocate for the applicants is neither available in the Court hall where the video conferencing facility is provided nor virtually available.

3.

Heard the learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Sham Patil, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.3.

4.

Learned A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and learned Advocate Mr. Sham Patil, appearing for respondent No.3 opposed to allow this application and submitted that no sufficient cause is assigned by the applicants for condonation of delay. 5.

On perusing the record, it is found that there is delay of 830 days in preferring the appeal by applicants / original claimants. The applicants / original claimants have assigned the reasons for condonation of delay in their application in para No.5. Due to financial crises, the applicants could not file the appeal within time. The delay was not intentional or deliberate. The reasons assigned by the applicants appear to be genuine and sufficient. 6.

In view of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji and others, reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353, refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. Making a justice oriented approach from this perspective, there is sufficient cause to condone the delay in the institution of the appeal.

7.

Having regard to the above reasons and discussion, the application needs to be allowed as under:

ORDER

(i) The application for condonation of delay moved by the applicants / original claimants is allowed.

(ii) The applicants / original claimants shall furnished undertaking that they would not claim the statutory benefits as well as amount of interest as laid down in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the delayed period, in case, any enhanced compensation is awarded by this Court after adjudication of the appeal on merits. (iii) The appeal be registered after due scrutiny.

(iv) Issue notice to respondents. Learned A.G.P. waives notice for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Sham Patil, learned Advocate waives notice for respondent No.3.

(v) Call Record and Proceedings from the Reference Court. (vi) Stand over to 28.10.2020.

( SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI ) JUDGE S.P. Rane