The Ex. Engineer, Beed Irrigation Division, Thr G.M.I.D.C., Aurangabad v. Hira Sakharam Rathod (Died) Thr Lrs Dhanubai And ORS

{1} CA 12916 OF 2018 & ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 957 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12916 OF 2018 IN FAST/31664/2018 THE EX. ENGINEER, BEED IRRIGATION DIVISION, THR G.M.I.D.C., AURANGABAD

VERSUS

TUKARAM SHANKARAO MUNDE AND ANR ...

WITH CA/12928/2018 IN FAST/31743/2018 WITH CA/12934/2018 IN FAST/31737/2018 ...

Advocate for Applicant-Acquiring Body : Mr.Sudhir G. Bhalerao AGP for Respondent-State : Mr.S.P.Deshmukh Advocate for Respondents-claimants : Mr.V.P.Latange h/f. Mr.T.G.Gaikwad ...

CORAM : K.K.SONAWANE, J.

DATE: 6th February, 2020 PER COURT:- 1.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant-Acquiring Body and learned counsel for respondents-claimants as well as learned AGP for the respondent-State. Perused the applications and relevant documents produced on record.

2.

The applicant-Acquiring Body moved present applications for condonation of delay caused in fling the frst appeals against impugned Judgments and Awards passed by the learned Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference fled under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. According to learned counsel for the applicantAcquiring Body, impugned Judgments and Awards passed by the Reference Court are erroneous, illegal and are not as per the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Applicant is Body corporate having its independent entity. After procuring the funds for court fees appeal came to be fled, however, there is delay in fling the appeals. According to learned counsel for applicant, delay so caused is not intentional or deliberate, but caused due to compliance of ofcial process.

{2} CA 12916 OF 2018 & ORS 3.

Learned counsel appearing for respondents-claimants raised objections and submits that delay has not been explained satisfactorily. The learned Reference Court has correctly appreciated evidence on record and awarded reasonable market value for the acquired lands. Therefore, delay may not be condoned.

4.

I have given anxious consideration to the submissions of both learned counsel. Considering the nature of the subject-matter and reasons mentioned in the applications, I do not fnd any impediment to allow the applications 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 application for consideration of delay. Therefore, it is imperative to grant some sort of latitude to the applicant - Acquiring Body to present appeals by condoning the delay. It would not cause any prejudice or injustice to the respondent. 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 applications stand allowed in terms of prayer clause (B). Delay caused in fling appeals against the impugned Judgments and Awards is hereby condoned. Registry to take requisite steps for registration of appeals. Civil applications stand disposed of accordingly. 5.

On registration of appeals, issue notice of fnal hearing of appeals to the respondents.

Mr.V.P.Latange h/f. Mr.T.G.Gaikwad, learned counsel waives service of notice for respondents-claimants. Learned AGP waives service of notice for respondent-State.

6. After compliance of procedural formalities, list the appeals for fnal hearing on 11.02.2020.

( K.K.SONAWANE ) JUDGE

{3} CA 12916 OF 2018 & ORS SPT