Bombay High Court
The Ex. Engineer, Minor ... vs Vishwas Krushna Gadkar on 15 March, 2021
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
ca8327.20
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
71 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8327 OF 2020
IN FAST/16014/2020
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION OSMANABAD
THROUGH SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
VISHWAS KRUSHNA GADKAR
...
Mr.Shyam C. Arora Advocate for Applicant No.1-Acquiring Body
Ms.D.S. Jape, A.G.P. for Applicant No. 2.
Mr.Sanjay B. Bhosale Advocate for Respondent.
...
CORAM: ANIL S. KILOR, J.
DATE : 15th MARCH, 2021
ORDER :
1. This is an application filed by the applicant -
Acquiring Body for condonation of delay. There is delay of 2572
days, which is about seven years, in filing the first appeal
challenging the Judgment and Award dated 30-11-2012, in Land
Acquisition Reference No. 109 of 2002, passed by learned IIIrd
Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad.
2. The reasons stated in the applications for
condonation of delay are as follows :-
ca8327.20
"4. The impugned award passed by the learned
reference court is dated 30/11/2012. The
application for certified copies was preferred on
29/11/2019 and was delivered on 05/12/2019.
The applicants were not aware about the said
judgment and award as the Learned Court below
has kept reserve the said reference for
judgment.
5. The Applicants sought legal opinion from the
advocate, who conducted reference. The
applicants sought necessary documents and
communications from the office of The Special
Land Acquisition Officer, Osmanabad.
6. The applicants are the Government institution
and has to take approval and budgetary
provision to file the appeal from the
Government. The Applicant No.1 has asked for
the amount of Court fees to file these appeals to
the Head Office as well as to the Government.
The time has been lapsed to receive the amount
of Court Fees and as soon as the amount
required for filing Appeal was received by the
Applicant from Head Office, the appeal is filed."
3. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that
the sufficient cause is shown in the application for condonation of
delay. It is further submitted that, the applicant- Acquiring Body
ca8327.20
has already deposited the decreetal amount in this Court, and
therefore, he submits that this is a fit case for condonation of
delay. Learned counsel for the applicant, in support of his
contentions, placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble
Bombay High Court in the case of - Esha Bhattacharjee
Versus Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar
Academy and others1 and submits that the State or a public
body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given
some acceptable latitude.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for claimant opposed the
application pointing out that no sufficient reasons are given by
the applicant-Acquiring Body, therefore, he prays for rejection of
application.
5. I have gone through the contents of the application
for condonation of delay.
6. After going through the application, I have no
hesitation to hold that in the present matter the delay is
inordinate. If it is the case of the applicant that the Reference
Court passed the Award in question on 30-11-2012 and an
1 (2013) 12 SCC 649
ca8327.20
application for obtaining certified copy was preferred on
29-11-2019, it is obligatory on the part of Acquiring Body to give
reasons for delay of about seven years in making application for
certified copy.
7. In a recent Judgment of the Honourable Supreme
Court of India in the case of - State of Madhya Prades and
others Versus Bherulal2 has held that ;
"It is the right time to inform all the government
bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that
unless they have reasonable and acceptable
explanation for the delay and there was bona fide
effort, there is no need to accept the usual
explanation that the file was kept pending for several
months / years due to considerable degree of
procedural red tape in the process. The government
departments are under a special obligation to ensure
that they perform their duties with diligence and
commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception
and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for
the government departments. The law shelters
everyone under the same light and should not be
swirled for the benefit of a few."
2 (2020) 10 Supreme Court Cases 654
ca8327.20
8. The above observations are made by the Apex Court,
relying upon the Judgment in Postmaster General Versus
Living Media (India) Ltd.3
9. In that view of the matter, the Judgment cited by the
applicant - Acquiring Body, in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee
(supra) is of no help to the applicant-Acquiring Body.
10. In the circumstances, in absence of any sufficient
cause shown in the application for cause of delay in filing appeal,
the civil application is rejected.
[ANIL S. KILOR, J.]
asb/MAR21
3 (2012) 3 SCC 563
