The State Of Maharashtra And ORS v. Mohan Vishwambhar Sontakke And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 939 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14628 OF 2018 IN FAST/33096/2018 WITH CA/14630/2018 IN FAST/33099/2018 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

VERSUS

MOHAN VISHWAMBHAR SONTAKKE AND ORS ...

AGP for Applicants : Shri R.V. Dasalkar Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : Shri Patne Santosh N. ...

CORAM : M.G.SEWLIKAR, J.

DATE : 13th MARCH, 2020.

PER COURT :

.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

These are the applications for condonation of the delay of 1197 days in fling appeal.

3.

It is contended in the applications that the delay is caused on account of procedural aspects. It is stated that the draft of the appeal was forwarded to the Higher Authority for approval and the approval did not receive within the stipulated period of limitation. Therefore, the delay of 1197 was caused in fling appeal. 4.

The learned Counsel Shri Patne for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 strongly opposed these applications on the ground that no sufficient cause is made out by the applicants for the condonation of

ca14628.18 delay. He further submitted that the applications for condonation can be allowed only on the ground applicants shall deposit the entire amount of compensation with interest thereon if not deposited within a period of six weeks from today.

5.

The learned AGP Shri Dasalkar placed reliance on Ningappa Thotappa Angadi Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another decided on 13.12.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 9415/2019 arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11015/2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :- 8.

We fnd that the issue raised in this appeal is no longer res-integra. This Court in Dhiraj Singh (Dead) through LRs. and others Vs. State of Haryana and others held that :

"14.

The appellants are identically situated and there is no reason to meet out a diferent treatment to them. We also note that, while in these cases, the High Court had refused to condone the delay and dismissed the LPAs of the appellants, other LPAs were allowed by the High Court itself by condoning the delay of the same magnitude in the same circumstances.

15.

Equities can be balanced by denying the appellants' interest for the period for which they did not approach the Court. The substantive rights of the appellants should not be allowed to be defeated on technical grounds by taking hypertechnical view of self-imposed limitations. In the matter of compensation for land acquisition, we are of the view that approach of

ca14628.18 the Court has to be pragmatic and not pedantic. (Emphasis applied) 6.

In the aforesaid case the period of delay was 2928 days. Having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the delay caused in preferring the appeal can be condoned subject to condition that the applicants shall deposit the entire amount of compensation with interest thereon if not deposited within a period of six weeks from today.

7.

The applications for condonation of delay are allowed. The delay is condoned on condition that the applicants shall deposit the entire amount of compensation with interest thereon if not deposited within the period of six weeks from today. 8.

The civil applications are disposed of.

9.

Copy of this order be kept in Appeal.

[ M.G.SEWLIKAR ] JUDGE mahajansb/