The Ex. Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division - 1 Sinchan Bhavan Parisar, Aurangabad And ANR v. Mohanlabai Dagadu Chavan
1 13-CA-408,15-20-d
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
13. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.408 OF 2020 IN FAST/40210/2019 THE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION - 1 SINCHAN BHAVAN PARISAR, AURANGABA
VERSUS
MOHANLABAI DAGADU CHAVAN ...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Shrinivas M. Ganachari AGP for Co-applicant : Mr. S. P. Deshmukh Advocate for Respondent-claimant : Mr. D. A. Bide ...
14 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.415 OF 2020 IN FAST/40205/2019 THE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION - 1 SINCHAN BHAVAN PARISAR, AURANGABA
VERSUS
CHAGAN DAGADU CHAVAN ...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Shrinivas M. Ganachari AGP for Co-applicant : Mr. S. P. Deshmukh Advocate for Respondent-claimant : Mr. D. A. Bide ...
CORAM : K.K. SONAWANE, J.
DATED : 20th JANUARY, 2020.
ORDER :- Issue notice to the respondent/s-claimant/s. Mr. Bide, learned counsel waives service of notice for respondents-claimants. 2.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant - Acquiring Body and learned counsel for respondent No.1 (original claimant) as well as learned AGP for co-applicant. Perused the applications and other relevant documents produced on record.
2 13-CA-408,15-20-d 3.
The applicant No. 1 - Acquiring Body moved 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 No. 223 and 211 of 2011 dated 07-01-2017 and 30-01-2017 respectively, 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 No. 1 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-Acquiring Body, delay so caused is not intentional or deliberate, but, caused due to compliance of official process. 4.
The learned counsel for respondent-original claimant submits that there is inordinate delay, which has not been explained satisfactorily, therefore, the same cannot be condoned and prayed for rejection of applications.
5.
The learned AGP for co-applicant submits that suitable orders may be passed.
6.
I have given anxious consideration to the submissions on behalf of both learned counsel. Considering the nature of the subject-matter and reasons mentioned in the application, 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
3 13-CA-408,15-20-d while dealing with the application for consideration of delay. Therefore, it is imperative to grant some sort of latitude to the applicantAcquiring Body to present an appeal by condoning the delay. It would not cause any prejudice or injustice to the respondents. 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 Civil 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 appeals. Civil applications stand disposed of accordingly. 7.
On registration of appeals, issue notice to the respondents. Mr. D. A. Bide, learned counsel waives service of notice for respondents-original claimants.
8. Meanwhile, call for record and proceedings from the concerned learned Reference Court.
9.
After compliance of procedural formalities, list the first appeals for admission or with the consent of both sides for final hearing on merit on 02-03-2020.
Sd./- [ K. K. SONAWANE ] JUDGE rrd