Bombay High Court
Venkat Niloba Kabade And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 6 February, 2024
Author: R. G. Avachat
Bench: R. G. Avachat
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
924 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13041 OF 2019
IN FAST/31621/2019
Venkat Niloba Kabade and Ors .. Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors ..Respondents
.....
Advocate for Applicants : Shri. Shailendra S. Gangakhedkar
AGP for Respondents No.1 & 3 / State : Smt. V. S. Chaudhari
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Shri. B. R. Surwase
.....
IN
FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.31621 OF 2019
...
CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT AND
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
Dated : February 6, 2024
PER COURT :-
In Application :
. This is the Application for condonation of 2231 days delay
in preferring the First Appeal for enhancement of compensation towards
the acquisition of land.
2. We have heard learned Advocate for the Applicants,
learned Advocate for the Respondent / Acquiring Body and the learned
AGP for Respondents No.1 and 3 / State.
3. The Reference Court had passed the Judgment and order in
L.A.R. No.228/1998 along with connected matters on 25.02.2013.
Now, the Claimants have preferred this Application for condonation of
2231 days delay in preferring the Appeal. The reasons cited in the
Application for condonation of delay read as follows :
"5. That, after this due to festival period and due to drought
situation and due to financial problem applicant skipped to file
appeal immediately. Applicants are from a rural area and they
were not aware of procedure of court and after arrangement of
sufficient money applicant decided to file the appeal.
6. That, Applicant submits, the delay of 2231 caused by
applicant to file this first appeal is purely accidental and not
intentional. The present delay is caused only and only due to
lack of communication, financial problem and lack of legal
knowledge of the applicant."
4. Learned Advocate for the Applicants relies on the Judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dhiraj Singh (D) through LRs
v. State of Haryana, (2014) 14 SCC 127 wherein Section 5 of the
Limitation Act is considered. Perusal of the said Judgment show that
delay was in respect of the Land acquisitions matters. The relevant
paragraphs from the said judgment are quoted below:
"15. Equities can be balanced by denying the appellants' interest for
the period for which they did not approach the Court. The substantive
rights of the appellants should not be allowed to be defeated on
technical grounds by taking hypertechnical view of self-imposed
limitations. In the matter of compensation for land acquisition, we are
of the view that approach of the court has to be pragmatic and not
pedantic.
16. The principles regarding condonation of delay particularly in
land acquisition matters, have been enunciated in Collector(LA) Vs.
Katiji 1987(2) SCC 107, where it is stated in para 3 as under:-
"3. The legislature has conferred the power to condone
delay by enacting Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of
1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice
to parties by disposing of matters on "merits".
The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is
adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful
manner which subserves the ends of justice - that being the life-purpose
for the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge
that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters
instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have
percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy. And such a
liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that:
"1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an
appeal late.
2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter
being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being
defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can
happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the
parties.
3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a
pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every
second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common
sense pragmatic manner.
4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted
against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred
for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being
done because of a non-deliberate delay.
5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately,
or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A
litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a
serious risk.
6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of
its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is
capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so."
17. The aforesaid judgment was followed by this Court in DDA Vs. Bhola
Nath Sharma 2011(2) SCC 54, which was also a matter concerning land
acquisition."
5. Learned Advocate for the Applicants further submits that
the Applicants shall not claim any interest for the delayed period and
shall file the undertaking in that regard.
6. Learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 and learned AGP
for Respondents No.1 and 3 opposed the Application.
7. The present application has been filed for condonation of
2231 days delay caused in preferring the First Appeal. According to the
Applicants, the Judgment and order / decree was delivered on
25.02.2013. Thereafter, due to drought situation and financial
problem, they could not take steps to file Appeal immediately. They
are from rural area and they were unaware about legal process and
thus, the aforesaid delay is caused.
8. The law in respect of condonation of delay is well settled
by catena of judgments of this Court as well as of the Hon'ble Apex
Court. In recent judgment in the case of Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased)
Through L.R.s and Others vs. Union of India & Anr.,
MANU/SC/1098/2023, the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the
earlier judgment on the subject matter.
9. Considering the position of law in Dhiraj Singh (D)
through LRs (supra) as well as in Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) Thr. LRs
(supra) and for the reasons stated in the Application, the Application is
allowed. The delay of 2231 days caused in preferring the First Appeal
is condoned. However, it is made clear that the Applicants shall
furnish undertaking to the effect that they would not claim interest for
the entire delayed period. The Application stands disposed of.
In Appeal :
10. Heard.
11. Admit.
12. Issue notice to the Respondents. Learned AGP waives
notice on behalf of Respondents No.1 and 3 / State. Learned Advocate
Shri. B. R. Surwase waives notice on behalf of Respondent No.2.
13. Call for Record and Proceedings.
( NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. ) ( R. G. AVACHAT, J. )
GGP
Signed by: Gajanan G. Punde
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 12/02/2024 18:39:09
