Executive Engineer, Osmanabad Medium Project Division, Osmanabad Thr K.K.V.M. Osmanabad v. Balam Shridhar Joshi And ORS
1 920-CA-2668-20
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD 920 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2668 OF 2020 IN FAST/37002/2019 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OSMANABAD MEDIUM PROJECT DIVISION, OSMANABAD THR K.K.V.M. OSMANABAD
VERSUS
BALAM SHRIDHAR JOSHI AND ORS ...
Advocate for Applicant : Smt. Sunita Dashrath Shelke Advocate for respondentNo. 1-original claimant/s: Mr. A.R. Barate AGP for Respondents -State Authorities : Mr. P.M. Kulkarni ...
WITH CA/2670/2020 IN FAST/37187/2019 WITH CA/2672/2020 IN FAST/37190/2019 WITH CA/2674/2020 IN FAST/37199/2019 WITH CA/2676/2020 IN FAST/37183/2019 ...
CORAM : K.K. SONAWANE, J.
DATED : 03rd MARCH, 2020.
ORDER :- 1.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
2.
Issue notice to respondents. Learned AGP waives services of notice on behalf of respondents State authorities. 3.
Mr. Barate, learned counsel submits that he has instructions to appear on behalf of respondent/s-original claimants in all these matters and undertakes to file Vakalatnama in the office during the course of day. Hence, he waives service of notice on behalf of respondent/soriginal claimants.
4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant - Acquiring Body as well as learned AGP for respondents State authorities and learned counsel for respondent/s - original claimant/s.
5.
The applicant - Acquiring Body moved the present applications for condonation of delay in filing the first appeals against impugned Judgment and Award passed by the learned Reference Court in Land Acquisition References filed under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. According to learned counsel for the applicant-Acquiring Body, impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Reference Court is erroneous, illegal and is 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 appeals came to be filed, however, there is delay in filing the appeals. According to learned counsel for applicant, delay so caused is not intentional or deliberate, but caused due to compliance of official process.
2 920-CA-2668-20 6.
The learned counsel for respondents-original claimants submits that there is inordinate delay, which has not been explained satisfactorily, therefore, the same cannot be condoned and prayed for rejection of applications.
7.
The learned AGP for respondents-State Authorities raised objection and submits that suitable orders may be passed. 8.
I have given anxious consideration to the submission of both learned counsel. Considering the nature of the subject-matter and reasons mentioned in the applications, I do not find 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 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 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 filing appeals against the impugned Judgment and Award is hereby condoned. Registry to take requisite steps for registration of appeal. Civil applications stand disposed of accordingly. 9.
On registration of appeal, issue notice to the respondents. learned AGP waives services of notice on behalf of State Authorities and Mr. Barate, learned counsel waives service of notice for respondents-original claimants.
10. Meanwhile, call for record and proceedings from the concerned learned Reference Court.
11. List the appeals for admission on 28-04-2020. [ K. K. SONAWANE ] JUDGE MTK