Badrinath Narayan Mahajan And ... vs Special Land Acquiition Officer ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 10859 Bom

                                      1                             wp14129-19.odt

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                           WRIT PETITION NO.14129 OF 2019


1]        Badrinath Narayan Mahajan
          Age : 73 Years, Occu.Nil
          R/o Bhawani Peth, Jalgaon
          Taluka & Dist.Jalgaon

2]        Shobha Vasudeo Mahajan
          Age : 59 years, Occu : Household

3]        Chandan Vasudeo Mahajan
          Age 40 years, Occu : Business

          2 & 3 R/o Chandraprabha Housing
          Society, Near Kwajamiya Darga
          Jalgaon, Taluka & District Jalgaon

4]        Ravindra Narayan Chaudhari
          Age : 59 years, Occu : Business
          R/o 196, Bhawani Peth, Jalgaon
          Taluka & District Jalgaon.

5]        Bindesh Yashwant Bhole
          Age : 53 years, Occu : Business
          R/o Near Main Post Office
          Jalgaon, Taluka & District Jalgaon

6]        Pushpa Jagannath Patil
          Age : 65 years, Occu : Nil
          R/o Khadgaon,
          Taluka & District Jalgaon

7]        Vijaya Laxman Patil
          Age : Major, Occu : Household
          R/o Janaki Nagar, Jalgaon
          Taluka & District Jalgaon.                 .. PETITIONERS
                                                   (Applicant in MCA )
                                                  (Org.Decree Holder)

                           VERSUS

1]        Special Land Acquisition Officer




     ::: Uploaded on - 12/08/2021                ::: Downloaded on - 13/08/2021 03:57:09 :::
                                          2                              wp14129-19.odt

          Collector office, Jalgaon
          Taluka & District Jalgaon

2]        Executive Engineer,
          Irrigation & Water Supply Division,
          Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon
          Taluka & District Jalgaon                       .. RESPONDENTS
                                                          (R.1 & 2 in MCA)
                                                          (Org.Judgment Debtor)
3]        Latika Anil Gajare
          Age : 63 years, Occu : Nil
          R/o SOU B Basant Bahar
          Baner Pashan Link Road,
          Pune                                          .. RESPONDENT
                                                        (R.3 IN MCA)
                                                     (Org.Decree Holder)
             ...
Shri S.H.Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioners
Shri P.N.Kutti,A.G.P. for respondent no.1
Shri Maheshkumar S. Sonawane, Advocate for respondent no.2.
             ...

                                    CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL,J.

DATED : 11/08/2021.

...

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.With the consent of both the sides, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2] The petitioners are before this Court being aggrieved and dissatisfied by rejection of their application for condonation of delay of 103 days in seeking restoration of Regular Darkhast No.354/2006 which was dismissed in default.

3] The learned advocate for the petitioners would submit that they have been fighting for just compensation for years together. They were not to gain anything by losing their right by getting the execution proceedings dismissed in default. They are rustic persons who may not

3 wp14129-19.odt

be deprived of right to recover the compensation of their lands acquired by the respondent no.2. The learned Judge has taken a hyper technical view while rejecting the application for condonation of delay.

4] The learned A.G.P. and the learned advocate for the respondent no.2 submit that no error is committed by the learned Judge refusing to condone the delay. The application of the petitioners was devoid of all the particulars. They have not been vigilant. In fact the petitioners are 7 in numbers and any one of them could have prosecuted the execution proceedings promptly and diligently.

5] I have carefully perused the impugned order and the papers and considered the rival submissions. The law in regard to the condonation of delay is far too well settled. Suffice for the purpose to refer to the oft quoted decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another V/s Mst. Katiji and others; A.I.R.1987 S.C. 1353 and Esha Bhattacharjee V/s Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649.

6] The prime consideration to be kept in mind while considering request for condonation of delay is a party is not to gain anything by allowing his rights and remedies to be lost in default. True it is that there has to be some sufficient cause for condoning the delay.

7] The petitioners in their application had averred various grounds which prevented them from prosecuting the execution proceedings diligently. Considering the fact that it is a matter of execution whereby the petitioners were seeking to claim compensation in respect of land acquired by the respondents coupled with the fact that the delay was merely of 103 days in seeking restoration, in my considered view, the justice demands that the impugned order is quashed and set aside and

4 wp14129-19.odt

the delay is condoned.

8]        The Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses [A] and [B]


9]        The Rule is made absolute.



                                             (MANGESH S. PATIL,J.)
umg/