Dinkar Vithal Chamle v. The State Of Maharashtra Through The Collector, Latur And ANR

2025:BHC-AUG:25071

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1032 OF 2024 IN FAST/37320/2023 Dinkar Vithal Chamle

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Through The Collector, Latur And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1033 OF 2024 IN FAST/37166/2023 Ramchandra Vithal Chamle

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Through Collector Latur And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1034 OF 2024 IN FAST/37325/2023 Ashok Vithal Chamle

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Through The Collector, Latur And Anr ...

Mr. E. G. Irale, Advocate for Applicant Mr. S. S. Dande, AGP for Respondent-State .....

CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR.

DATED : 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2025 ORDER :- .

Being dissatisfied with the judgment and awards dated 23.02.2005, passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedpur, Bench at Udgir in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.2928 of 2001, 2926 of 2001 and 2927 of 2001 respectively, the claimants have preferred these appeals

seeking enhancement in the land acquisition compensation against compulsory acquisition of their agricultural land. 2.

Learned Advocate for applicants Mr. E. G. Irale submits that since, after passing of the impugned judgment and award, the claimants have not lodged any legal proceeding before any Authority/Court for enhancement in the compensation. Mr. Irale further submits that the claimants are poor farmers and have already lost the sole source of their livelihood. With an object to get adequate compensation, the present appeals are filed. He would further submit that due to lack of legal knowledge and due to weak financial condition, they could not approach to the Court or Advocate earlier. With this, Mr. Irale for the applicant seeks condonation of delay, assuring that if the delay is condoned, the claimants would not claim any compensation, interest or any other amount for the delayed period.

3.

Mr. S. S. Dande, learned AGP however, vehemently opposes the Civil Applications contending that the respective delays are inordinate and not bonafide.

4.

Having heard the counsels, I find that for the reasons stated in the applications, the claimants/applicants have made

out a case to condone the delay.

5.

Profitable reference can be made to the judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Ors., (Civil Appeal arising out of (C) No.670/2020) and connected matters decided on 23.04.2025. Their Lordships, after considering series of judgments, have observed in paragraph 11, as follows:- "11.

In all judgments referred supra, the common thread that can be observed is that delay is not a reason to deny the land losers their compensation,which is just, fair and reasonable for the land they have lost."

6.

This Court vide an order dated 11.09.2025, passed in Civil Application No.1031 of 2024 in First Appeal St. No.37315 of 2023, has condoned delay in the appeal arising out of the same land acquisition proceeding and land acquisition award.

7.

In view of above consideration, following order: a.

Civil Applications stand allowed.

b.

Delay caused in filing the First Appeals stand condoned.

c.

Appeals be registered. On registration of

appeals, issue notice to the respondents. Mr. S. S. Dande, learned AGP waives service of notice for respondents-State.

d.

Call Record and Proceedings.

8.

Stand over to 20.11.2025.

( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. ) Rushikesh/2025