Bombay High Court
The Ex. Engineer, Lift Irrigation ... vs Babruwan Yeda Mali on 18 January, 2021
Bench: V.L. Achliya
10996.19.CA+.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10996 OF 2019
IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.26238 OF 2019
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LIFT IRRIGATION
DIVISION, OSMANABAD AND ORS.
VERSUS
GAJARABAI W/O MARUTI KSHIRSAGAR (DIED) THR.
L.RS. PANDURANG MARUTI KSHIRSAGAR
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11003 OF 2019
IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.26257 OF 2019
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LIFT IRRIGATION
DIVISION, OSMANABAD AND ORS.
VERSUS
BABRUWAN YEDA MALI
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11005 OF 2019
IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.26252 OF 2019
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LIFT IRRIGATION
DIVISION, OSMANABAD AND ORS.
VERSUS
RAOSAHEB SAMBHAJI KEDAR
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11001 OF 2019
IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.25781 OF 2019
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LIFT IRRIGATION
DIVISION, OSMANABAD AND ORS.
VERSUS
MARUTI TUKARAM GAIKWAD AND OTHERS
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10998 OF 2019
IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.26247 OF 2019
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LIFT IRRIGATION
DIVISION, OSMANABAD AND ORS.
VERSUS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 04:55:38 :::
10996.19.CA+.odt
2
DINKAR SADASHIV BHADRE
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11007 OF 2019
IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.26261 OF 2019
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LIFT IRRIGATION
DIVISION, OSMANABAD AND ORS.
VERSUS
GENA DAJI GAIKWAD (DIED) THR. L.RS.
SMT.LAXMIBAI W/O GENA GAIKWAD AND ORS.
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10999 OF 2019
IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.26241 OF 2019
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LIFT IRRIGATION
DIVISION, OSMANABAD AND ORS.
VERSUS
PADMAKAR AMBRUSHI SATHE AND ANR
...
Mr.S.C. Arora, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr.V.V. Ingale, Advocate for the respondent
no.1.
Mr.A.A. Jagatkar, AGP for the
respondent/State
...
CORAM : V.L.ACHLIYA,J.
DATE : 18.01.2021
ORAL ORDER :
The applicants-appellants have moved
these applications seeking condonation of
delay in filing respective appeals for the
reasons set out in detail in the
applications.
2. Heard the learned counsel for
10996.19.CA+.odt
the applicants/appellants and counsel
representing the respondent/s - claimant/s in
respective appeals.
3. In brief, it is the contention of
learned counsel for the applicants-appellants
that the delay caused in filing appeals was
not deliberate and intentional. It was
primarily occurred due to considerable time
spent in collecting the documents and
securing sanction to file appeals from the
higher authorities. It is submitted that the
appellants have good case to succeed in
appeals. The judgment and award passed by the
Reference Court is not sustainable in law. It
is submitted that no evidence was adduced on
the part of the claimants to support the case
for enhancement. It is submitted that the
Reference Court has enhanced the compensation
based upon the decision in L.A.R.
No.757/2011. It is submitted that the award
passed in L.A.R. No.757/2011 is under
challenge before this Court in First Appeal
(Stamp) No.26241/2019 along with application
seeking condonation of delay.
4. It is submitted the compensation
assessed @ Rs.210/- per R by the S.L.A.O. has
10996.19.CA+.odt
been enhanced to Rs.688/- per R by the
Reference Court. In that view, the
enhancement is about 7 to 8 times the
compensation assessed and awarded by the
S.L.A.O. It is submitted that the interest
has been awarded from the date of
notification, which is contrary to the Full
Bench decision of this Court in the case of
State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva
Rangari reported in 2016(3) Mh.L.J. 457. In
case, the delay is not condoned, the
meritorious matters may be rejected for
technical reasons. In this background,
learned counsel urged to condone the delay.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel
for the respondents - claimants opposed the
applications with contention that the reasons
assigned are not sufficient to condone the
delay.
6. On due consideration of submissions
advanced in the light of overall facts of the
case, the reasons assigned for condonation of
delay and challenges raised in the appeals, I
am of the view, the delay deserves to be
condoned. In case, the delay is condoned, no
prejudice would cause to other side as
10996.19.CA+.odt
ultimately the appeals to be decided on
merits. On the contrary, if the delay is not
condoned, there is every likelihood that the
meritorious matter may be rejected for
technical reasons.
7. It is not out of place to observe
that the judgment and award passed by the
Reference Court reflects casual approach as
well as understanding of law on the part of
the learned Judge of the Reference Court. In
para 10, the Reference Court has made the
following observations by quoting the same as
law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and
various High Courts :-
"10. Enhancement cannot be taken as a
matter of charity. At the same time,
it must be borne in mind (keeping in
mind the observations of the Apex
Court as well as various High Courts)
that "to grant enhancement is a rule
and to reject it is the exception."
8. The above quoted observations are
totally incorrect. Neither the Hon'ble Apex
Court nor any High Court has laid down such
law in any of its pronouncement. In view of
10996.19.CA+.odt
above, I am of the view, the applications
deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the
applications are allowed. Delay condoned.
Appeals be registered subject to removal of
office objections, if any.
9. Civil Applications are disposed of
in above terms.
[V.L.ACHLIYA]
JUDGE
SGA
