The Executive Engineer, Kukadi ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 12208 Bom

                                                                       ca14603.15
                                      -1-


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                    928 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14603 OF 2015
                               IN FAST/27931/2015

          THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KUKADI DISTRIBUTION AND
                     CONSTRUCTION DIV. KOLWADI
                              VERSUS
               THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                .....

                                      AND
                      CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14606 OF 2015
                               IN FAST/28072/2015
                                      AND
                      CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14609 OF 2015
                               IN FAST/27936/2015
                                       .....

     Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Jeevan R. Patil h/f Mr. G.B. Rajale
                AGP for Respondent-State: Mr. R.D. Sanap
  Advocate for Respondents-claimants : Mr. Shubham D. Jayabhar h/f Mr.
                               D.R. Jayabhar
                                      .....

                                     CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J.

DATED : 31st AUGUST, 2021

PER COURT:-

1. Heard.

2. There is delay of 1720 days caused in filing appeals preferred

against the common judgment and award dated 06.10.2010 passed

by the reference court in group of matters bearing L.A.R. No. 819 of

2003 alongwith other land acquisition references.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant acquiring body submits that

the acquiring body was not party in the reference proceedings and

ca14603.15

after getting knowledge and securing the funds from the Corporation,

the appeals have been preferred for which delay has been caused.

The delay is not intentional one and the applicant acquiring body is

prevented from sufficient cause to prefer appeals within limitation.

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondents-claimants has

strongly resisted the applications on the ground that the applicant

acquiring body has not satisfactorily explained the delay. There is

inordinate delay in preferring appeals. Learned counsel submits that

even the acquiring body has not complied with the conditional interim

stay order passed by this Court.

5. I have also heard learned A.G.P. for respondent-State.

6. It appears that in the original reference proceedings the

applicant acquiring body was not impleaded as party respondent.

Consequently, the award came to be passed against the State only.

The applicant acquiring body, after getting knowledge of the award

passed by the reference court, collected certified copy of the

judgment and award passed by the reference court and after making

necessary arrangement and obtaining the approval etc. preferred

appeals. I do not think that the delay is intentional one and the

applicant acquiring body since not impleaded as party in the original

proceedings, the delay has been caused.

ca14603.15

7. In view of above and for the reasons stated in the civil

applications, civil applications are allowed in terms of prayer clause

"B" and disposed of.

(V. K. JADHAV, J.)

rlj/