The Maharashtra Krushna Valley Dev. Corp. Thr. Exe Engineer Medium Project Osmanabad And ORS v. Panchakshari Revanayya Swami

1 925 CA-16145-16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 925 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16145 OF 2016 IN FAST/31453/2016 THE MAHARASHTRA KRUSHNA VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION THR EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MEDIUM PROJECT

VERSUS

SHIVAJI KRUSHNA DEVKATE ...

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Anil M. Gaikwad. Advocate for Respondent Sole : Mr. Ramesh V Naiknaware. ...

WITH CA/16147/2016 IN FAST/33817/2016 WITH CA/16151/2016 IN FAST/33823/2016 WITH CA/16153/2016 IN FAST/33828/2016 ...

CORAM : K.K. SONAWANE, J.

DATED : 07TH SEPTEMBER, 2017.

Order :- 1] Heard learned counsel for the applicant/s and learned counsel for the respondent.

2] Perused the applications. Learned Counsel for applicant/s submits that due to official procedure, delay has been caused for filing appeal. He submits that delay is not deliberate and intentional but caused owing to administrative compliance. As such, he prayed to condone the delay.

3] Learned counsel for the respondent raised objection and submits that delay has not been properly explained and it would be unjust and improper to condone the delay.

4] I have heard the submission canvassed on behalf of both sides. Perused the applications as well as the impugned Judgment and Award against which the applicant Acquiring Body is intending to file an appeal/s.

2 925 CA-16145-16 5] The matter pertains to land acquisition proceedings. The learned Reference Court partly allowed the application of the respondent-original claimant/s filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The applicant Acquiring Body is intending to agitate the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court on the issue of market value arrived at by the learned Reference Court, which according to Acquiring Body, is exorbitant. It has been contended that after the impugned Judgment and Award of the Reference Court, the Acquiring Body being an independent institution approached to its counsel as directed by the superior officers and obtained the tentative figure of proposed expenditure for filing an appeal. The applicant Acquiring Body made necessary arrangement of finance for requisite court fees etc.

, and thereafter preferred the present appeal with applications for condonation of delay. The impugned delay was not intentional and deliberate but owing to compliance of official process. 6] I am of the considered opinion that reasonable opportunity needs to be given to the applicant Acquiring Body to ventilate its grievances in the appellate forum. It is to be noted that the matter pertains to the enhancement of compensation amount under the Land Acquisition Act. The appellant is the Government Agency i.e. Acquiring Body and in view of public interest, it is imperative to extend latitude in favour of applicant. It is the rule of law that while dealing with the application for condonation of delay, the liberal and pragmatic approach is essential to be adopted by avoiding pedantic approach.

If the appeal/s of the appellant- Acquiring Body is/are not allowed to be presented for further process on the ground of such default of delay, no person is individually affected but, ultimately, the public interest would be at stake. Therefore, I do not find any impediment to allow the applicant- Acquiring Body to present an appeal by condoning the delay. It would not cause any prejudice or injustice to the respondent. In contrast, it would sub-serve the purpose for substantial justice. Hence, the applications for condonation of delay deserve to be allowed. In sequel, the applications stand allowed in terms of prayer clause (A).

3 925 CA-16145-16 Delay caused in filing appeal/s against the impugned Judgment and Award is hereby condoned. The civil applications for condonation of delay stand disposed of accordingly. Registry to take requisite steps for registration of appeal/s and list the matters for further process. [K.K. SONAWANE] JUDGE.

rrd.