High Court · 2025
Legal Reasoning
( 1 ) 967 CA 9727 OF 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD967 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9727 OF 2025 IN FAST/9436/2025SUPADUSHAH HABIB FAKIR DEAD THR LRS 1A SHAMSHADBEE ANDORSVERSUS1 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER M I W JALGAON AND ORSWITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3638 OF 2025 IN FAST/9436/2025THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MIW JALGAONVERSUSSUPADUSHAH HABIB FAKIR (DEAD) THR LRS. SHAMSHADBEESUPADUSHAH AND ORSWITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3639 OF 2025 IN FAST/9436/2025THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MIW JALGAONVERSUSSUPADUSHAH HABIB FAKIR (DEAD) THR LRS. SHAMSHADBEESUPADUSHAH AND ORS...Mr. A. B. Kale, Advocate for Applicants (in Civil Application No.9727 of2025)Mr. S. S. Dande, AGP for Respondent-StateMr. S. S. Chillarge, Advocate for Respondent No.1Mr. B. K. Pawar h/f. Mr. A. B. Kale, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and2 (In Civil Application No.3638 of 2025)…CORAM:AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.DATE:10th SEPTEMBER 2025
Legal Reasoning
( 2 ) 967 CA 9727 OF 2025PER COURT :-CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9727 OF 20251.This Civil Application is filed by the applicants forwithdrawal of the amount deposited by the respondent/acquiring bodyin this Court pursuant to the judgment and award dated 08.04.2019,passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, in LandAcquisition Reference No.865/2013.2.Mr. Kale, learned counsel for the applicants, invited myattention to the order passed by this Court 3rd April 2025 and 17th July2025. Paragraph 4 of order dated 17th July 2025 reads as follows :“If amount is not deposited within stipulated time, ad-interim relief shall stand vacated automatically withoutreference to this Court. It is also communicated that thisCourt is likely to permit the respondents to withdraw 75%of the amount deposited without imposing any conditions.”3.Mr. Kale further submits that despite there being order ofthis Court to the applicant to deposit entire payable award amount,acquiring body has not deposited such entire amount, but merelydeposited Rs.29,40,600/-. He further submits that in view of paragraph ( 3 ) 967 CA 9727 OF 20254 of the order dated 17th July 2025, as of today the stay granted earlierby this Court has lost its effect because of the failure on the part of theacquiring body to comply with the condition imposed by this Court inthe order dated 3rd April 2025. He further submits that expression inthe order dated 17th July 2025, that 75 percent of the depositedamount would be permitted to be withdrawn by the applicants, wasalso based on the assurance given by the acquiring body to deposit thebalance amount as early as possible. With this, Mr Kale prays to allowthe application and to permit the applicants to withdraw the amountdeposited by the respondent/acquiring body in this Court.4.Mr. Chillarge, represented the acquiring body vehementlyopposes the application. He states that the appeal consists of goodgrounds on merit, particularly as regards the application of interest tothe award amount. Secondly he submits that the learned Trial Courthas erroneously considered valuation of the subject-matter property atan exorbitant rate and in any event has given exorbitant compensation.He further points out that the applicants have already withdrawn anamount of Rs.68,69,643/- that was deposited in this Trial Court.Therefore, Mr. Chillarge urges to reject the Civil Application.5.Heard both the sides. ( 4 ) 967 CA 9727 OF 20256.It is undisputed that upon scrutinizing evidence on recordand applying judicial mind, the learned Trial Court has arrived at aconclusion to enhance compensation in favour of the applicants inrespect of the acquisition of their agricultural land. Today, the awardstands in favour of the applicants. The amount deposited by theacquiring body remains in the bank. It is in nobody’s interest that theamount be left pending. Pertinently, even the acquiring body has notdeposited the entire amount of compensation as was directed by thisCourt yet.7.In these circumstances, I feel it appropriate to pass thefollowing order :-ORDERa.Civil Application stands allowed.b. Applicants are permitted to withdraw the amountdeposited by the acquiring body in this Court subject tofurnish usual undertaking to the satisfaction of the learnedRegistrar (Judicial) of this Court.c.Needless to mention that the permitted withdrawalshall be together with the interest accrued thereon. ( 5 ) 967 CA 9727 OF 2025CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3638 OF 20251.This is an application seeking condonation of delay for2080 days caused in filing the present First Appeal. 2.Its apparent that the delay caused in filing present appealis a big enough requiring the Court to apply judicious mind cautiouslyto use the discretion to condone the delay. The parameters to use suchdiscretion are set by various verdicts of the Honorable Supreme Courtas also by this Court in various cases. 3.A profitable reference can be made to the Judgment &Order passed by the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Sheo RajSingh (Deceased through LRs.) & Ors. V/s Union of India and ors.[Civil Appeal No.5867 of 2015 dtd.09-10-2023]. Honorable SupremeCourt was dealing with an Appeal wherein High Court’s ordercondoning delay of 479 days caused in filing a First Appeal by theGovernment against a Judgment & Award passed in Land AcquisitionReference was under challenge.4.Considering the overall law prevailing in the field of‘condonation of delay in appeals filed by the Government bodies andAuthorities’, the Honorable Supreme Court approved the view adoptedby the High Court to condone the delay. ( 6 ) 967 CA 9727 OF 20255.In the present case firstly, the object in challenging theimpugned Judgment & Award is averred not only to save the publicfunds, but to object unjust and irrational consideration rendered by theLd. Trial Court excepting the concept of ‘Just & Fair Compensation’.Secondly, if the appeal is heard on its own merit it would lead tosubstantial justice. For the delayed period , the charge of interest onthe award amount is also running. As such the interest of the claimantsis protected enough. Rather if the delay is not condoned, it wouldresult into miscarriage of justice. In the present case, theapplicant/appellant has even deposited substantial portion of theAward in the Court which is even withdrawn by the claimant side.Thirdly, the applicant/appellant has sufficiently and properly explainedthe delay although not day-to-day. In my considered opinion, presentcase is squarely covered by the law laid down in “Sheo Raj case”(Supra) wherein its held that, length of delay is not decisive in suchcases where delay is properly explained. 6.For the reasons stated above, I am of the pragmatic viewthat by using the judicial discretion, delay in filing present First Appealdeserves to be condoned. Hence I pass following order.a.Delay of 2080 days, caused in filing First Appeal is ( 7 ) 967 CA 9727 OF 2025hereby condoned.b.Civil Application stands allowed.c.Registry to register the First Appeal, subject to removalof office objections, if any, by the applicant/appellant withinfour weeks from today.7.After registration of the First Appeal, issue notice tothe respondents. Mr. Dande, learned AGP waives service of noticefor respondent no.2/State. Mr. Pawar h/f. Mr. Kale, learned counselwaives service of notice for respondent Nos.1a to 1i and 2.[AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]PRW