High Court
Legal Reasoning
1937-ca-10023-2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10023 OF 2025 IN FAST/28260/2023Dagdabai Manikchand Phulpagar Since Seceased Through LrsMangilal Manikchand PhulpagarVERSUSMunicipal Corporation Aurangabad And Anr...Mr. P. V. Mandlik, Sr. Adv. i/b Mr. P. P. Mandlik, Advocate forApplicantMr. S. S. Dande, AGP for Respondents-StateMr. A. P. Bhandari, Advocate for Respondent no.1...WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13194 OF 2023 IN FAST/28260/2023WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13195 OF 2023 IN FAST/28260/2023…..CORAM:AJIT B. KADETHANKAR. DATED:20TH SEPTEMBER, 2025ORDER :-CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10023 OF 2025 IN FAST/28260/2023.Heard Mr. A. P. Bhandari, learned Advocate appearingfor the Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad/appellant in theFirst Appeal and Mr. P. V. Mandlik, Senior Advocate i/bMr. P. P. Mandlik, learned Advocate appearing for the originalclaimants/applicants in Civil Application.2.Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated26.09.2022, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Divisionand Corporation Court, Aurangabad in Land Acquisition 2937-ca-10023-2025Reference No.22 of 2012 (Old L.A.R. No.51 of 1998), theappellant/Municipal Corporation has lodged the present FirstAppeal in this Court.3.It is not in dispute that pursuant to the stay granted bythis Court to the execution and operation of the judgment andaward impugned in the First Appeal, this Court vide its orderdated 13.06.2025 has stayed execution and operation of theimpugned judgment and award thereby calling upon theMunicipal Corporation to deposit 75 percent of the awardamount in this Court.4.Mr. A. P. Bhandari, learned learned Advocate for theMunicipal Corporation submits that such 75 percent of thetotal awarded amount is deposited by the Corporation in thisCourt together with accrued interest therein. 5.Mr. P. V. Mandlik, learned Senior Advocate submits thatthe entitlement of the claimants is adjudicated by the learnedReference Court by appreciating the entire evidence on recordand considering the facts of the case. Mr. Mandlik wouldfurther submit that whatever defence the Corporation/appellant had, it was thoroughly placed by the corporationduring the trial in the reference proceeding. He would furthersubmit that their property has been compulsorily acquired by 3937-ca-10023-2025the by the Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad and yet theCorporation has disputed over the entitlement of theclaimants as to the realistic valuation of the acquired property.With this submission, Mr. P. V. Mandlik, learned SeniorAdvocate for the claimants prays to allow the applicants towithdraw the entire amount deposited by theappellant/Corporation in this Court.6.Upon having heard both the parties, I am of theconsidered view that entitlement of the claimants is examinedand appreciated by the learned Reference Court after goingthrough the entire evidence on record as well as consideringdefence of the appellant/Corporation. Today the award standsin favour of the claimant. The amount so deposited by theMunicipal Corporation i.e. 75 percent of the total awardedamount is pending in the bank and it is in nobody’s interestthat the amount be kept pending in the bank. Hence, I passfollowing order:ORDERa.Civil Application is partly allowed.b.Applicants are permitted to withdraw 75percent of the total deposit made by the 4937-ca-10023-2025Corporation on furnishing usual undertaking and25 percent of the balance amount on furnishingsolvent surety/security to the satisfaction of theRegistrar (Judicial) of this Court.c.Civil Application stands disposed of.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13194 OF 2023 IN FAST/28260/2023 (DELAY).Heard both the parties. 2.There is delay of 197 days caused in filing the presentFirst Appeal by the Municipal Corporation.3.Mr. A. P. Bhandari, learned Advocate appearing for theappellant/Municipal Corporation submits that the delay is notdeliberate nor out of any lethargy on any part of authority. Hewould further submit that it is not an attempt to protract anylegal proceeding or to frustrate the right of therespondents/claimants. Mr. Bhandari submit that the delay iscaused due to administrative exigencies and that right orinterest of the claimant is also secured by the act ofcorporation by depositing at least 75 percent of the awardedamount in this Court. With this Mr. A. P. Bhandari prays tocondone the delay and register the appeal for being heard onmerits.
Legal Reasoning
5937-ca-10023-20254.Mr. P. V. Mandlik, learned Senior Advocate i/b Mr. P. PMandlik, learned Advocate for claimants placed his objectionto the delay condonation. He would submit that theCorporation in such case ought to have been vigilant on thepoint of filing the appeal. He further submits that particularlywhen the parties like claimant whose property has acquiredand they have been deprived to get adequate compensation,the public bodies like Corporation ought to have taken bettercare and the appeal should not have been delayed. He furthersubmits that the delay seems to have arisen due to negligenceby the authorities. With this, Mr. P. V. Mandlik, learned SeniorAdvocate prays to reject the application.5.Upon having heard both the parties, I am of theconsidered view that the applicant/corporation has made outa case for condonation of delay. The reasons given forcondonation of delay are well explained in the CivilApplication. Considering the grounds mentioned in the CivilApplication, the case is fully covered by the guidelines set bythe Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sheo Raj Singh(Deceased through LRs.) & Ors. V/s Union of India and ors.[Civil Appeal No.5867 of 2015 dtd.09-10-2023]. Hon’bleSupreme Court was dealing with an Appeal wherein High 6937-ca-10023-2025Court’s order condoning delay of 479 days caused in filing aFirst Appeal by the Government against a Judgment & Awardpassed in Land Acquisition Reference was under challenge.6.Considering the overall law prevailing in the field of‘condonation of delay in appeals filed by the Governmentbodies and Authorities’, the Hon’ble Supreme Court approvedthe view adopted by the High Court to condone the delay.7.In view of above consideration, I pass following order:ORDERa.Civil Application is allowed.b.Delay of 197 days caused in filing presentFirst Appeal stands condoned.c.Registry to register the First Appeal subjectto removal of all office objections, if any, withintwo weeks.d.Civil Application stands disposed of.FIRST APPEAL ST. .Heard.2.Admit.3.Issue notice to the respondents. Mr. P. P. Mandlik,learned Advocate waives service of notice for respondent no.1.Learned AGP waives service of notice for respondent-State.4.Call Record and Proceeding. 7937-ca-10023-2025CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13195 OF 2023 IN FAST/28260/2023 (STAY).In view of the interim order passed by this Court on28.03.2025, learned Senior Advocate Mr. P. V. Mandlik i/bMr. P. P. Mandlik, learned Advocate for the claimants pointedout that on 28.03.2025, a statement/submission was made bythe applicant/appellant that for the time being, theCorporation would deposit 75 percent of the amount ofcompensation as awarded by the learned Reference Court. Hewould further submit that accepting that submission, the staywas granted. Mr. Mandlik, learned Senior Advocate wouldsubmit that the judgment and award impugned in the presentFirst Appeal is nothing but a money decree in the First Appeal,particularly while seeking stay to the execution and operationto the judgment and award impugned, the appellant mustdeposit the entire monetary liability i.e. settled by the learnedTrial Court.2.Mr. A. P. Bhandari, learned Advocate for theapplicant/appellant would however submit that the part of 25percent which is now prayed to be deposited by the claimantsis highly disputed by the Corporation on good merits.Mr. Bhandari would submit that if the balance portion is alsodeposited, it will take away the right of the 8937-ca-10023-2025appellant/Corporation which the Corporation want toemphasize in the First Appeal.3.Considering arguments of both sides of the parties, Ifeel it appropriate to direct the Corporation to deposit thebalance 25 percent of the amount together with interest inthis Court within period of 16 weeks from today and it isordered accordingly. This amount shall however be depositedin fixed deposit and its disbursement would be subject to thedecision in the First Appeal.4.In view of above consideration, Civil Application forstay is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’.5.Civil Application is disposed of.( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )Rushikesh/2025