Yadav S/O Gunaji Kanake (Dead) Through His Lrs Narayan S/O Yadav Kanake And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Yavatmal And Other
1 8.cao.1447.2024
IN THE HIGH
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1447 OF 2024 IN MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO.20207 OF 2024 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 20787 OF 2022 Yadav s/o Gunaji Kanake (Dead) Thr. LR's ..vs..
State of Maharashtra and anr.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.U. Nemade, Advocate for the appellants/applicants. Ms Kavimandan, Assistant Government Pleader for the State. CORAM: ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 29/01/2025.
Heard.
2.
The appellants/applicants have preferred the First Appeal challenging the Award dated 29.08.1998 passed by the learned Reference Court in L.A.C. No.191/1995.
3.
Registration of the appeal came to be refused by the Registrar (Judicial) vide order dated 28.02.2023 for non-removal of office objection.
4.
The applicants have challenged the said order by preferring the revision application as provided under the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960. There is a delay of 568 days in filing the Revision Application. The applicants pray for condonation of the said delay by the present application. The delay sought to be explained on the ground that, the learned Counsel for the applicants was busy in arrangement of marriage of his son and also that the applicants were not in a position to arrange for the deficit court fee as mentioned in the
2 8.cao.1447.2024 office objection.
5.
Learned Counsel for the applicants make a statement that the compensation for land acquired in the adjoining villages under the same project, has been enhanced by this Court in different First Appeals. 6.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/State strenuously opposes the application stating that although the proceeding is arising out of land acquisition matter, delay cannot be condoned merely for the asking. She argues that the delay is gross and the explanation offered for the delay is by no stretch of imagination plausible. Lastly, she submits that in the event the delay is condoned, the applicants should not be entitled to receive interest and other statutory benefits of the period of delay. 7.
Having heard the rival submissions. I am of the considered opinion that the delay is not properly explained, however having regard to the statement made by the learned Counsel for the applicants, that compensation has been enhanced with respect to other land acquired under the project, I am inclined to condone the delay. However, I am of the opinion that the contention of the learned A.G.P. that the applicants should not be entitled to interest and other statutory benefits for the period of delay deserved to be accepted. 8.
In the result, the application is allowed and delay stands condoned, subject to condition that the applicants will not be entitled for interest and other statutory benefits i.e. from 29.08.1998 till today.
3 8.cao.1447.2024 MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO. 20207/2024 9.
Heard.
10.
For the reasons mentioned in the order allowing the application for condonation of delay, the Misc. Civil Application is allowed.
11.
Order dated 28.02.2023 passed by the Registrar (Judicial) in First Appeal St.No.20787/2022 is quashed and appeal is restored to file.
12.
The restoration is subject to condition that all office objections will be removed positively on or before 12.02.2025, without seeking further extension. (ROHIT W. JOSHI , J.
) Trupti Signed by: Trupti D. Agrawal Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 31/01/2025 17:27:46