Gangabai Motiram Rathod v. The District Collector Nanded And Another

1 945-FA-3147-19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3147 OF 2019 IN FAST/1896/1999 GANGABAI MOTIRAM RATHOD

VERSUS

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR NANDED AND ANOTHER ...

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Vaibhav Deshmukh h/f. Mr. Murar V. Deshpande AGP for Respondents : Mr. S. N. Morampalle ...

CORAM : K.K. SONAWANE, J.

DATED : 04th MARCH, 2020.

ORDER :- Heard learned counsel for the applicant-original claimant and learned AGP for respondents - State of Maharashtra and Special Land Acquisition Officer. Perused the application and other relevant documents produced on record.

2.

The applicant is seeking restoration of the proceeding, which came to be dismissed in the year 1999 for non removal of office objections within stipulated period. Learned counsel for the applicant fervidly contends that the applicant has preferred the proceeding of FAST/1896/1999. But, some office objections were notified by the learned Registrar. Inadvertently, the office objections could not be removed within stipulated period. The circumstances constrained the learned Registrar to pass order for refusal of registration of appeal for not removal of office objections within stipulated period. The applicant,

2 945-FA-3147-19 after colossal period of 20 to 21 years, moved present application seeking condonation of delay for registration of proceeding of appeal, which came to be dismissed for not removal of office objections in the year 1999.

3.

In view of attending circumstances of the matter-in-hand, there is no propriety to extend the latitude in favour of applicant-claimant for condonation of huge delay to get the proceeding of appeal restored, which came to be dismissed in the year 1999 for not removing office objections within stipulated period. The reasons mentioned in the application appear not sustainable and appreciable to entertain the present application for condonation of huge delay caused for filing the present application. In these circumstances, the Civil Application being devoid of merit and inapt deserves to be dismissed. 4.

Accordingly, the Civil Application stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

Sd./- [ K. K. SONAWANE ] JUDGE rrd