Bombay High Court
Somaning Dhanappa Duggani (Deceased) ... vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer ... on 5 August, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:33552
Digitally
signed by
ANANT
ANANT KRISHNA 901.FA.255.2025 C.doc
KRISHNA NAIK
NAIK Date:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
2025.08.06
20:03:15
+0530 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 255 OF 2025
Somaning Dhanappa Duggani (deceased) Through
His L.Rs 1a. Smt. Indrabai Somning Duggani & Ors ...Appellants
Versus
The Special Land Acquisition Officer No.9 Sangli & Ors. ...Respondents
****
Mr. Tejpal Ingale a/w Ms. Vrunali Vilankar for the Appellant Nos. 1a to 1c &
1d(1) to 1d(4)
Mr. A. R. Patil, Addl. G.P. for Respondents-State.
****
CORAM : M. M. SATHAYE, J.
DATED : 5th AUGUST 2025
P.C.:
1. Heard learned Counsel for the Appellants and learned Add. GP for the
Respondent -State.
2. The present Appeal takes exception to the impugned judgment and
award dated 11/04/20212 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 89 of 2008
by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangali by which the Land Reference is
dismissed.
3. Perusal of the impugned Judgment indicates that the Appellants failed
to lead any evidence in support of their case and, in essence, the impugned
order is not an order passed on merits.
4. Learned counsel Mr. Ingale for the Appellants submitted that an
opportunity to lead evidence is necessary in the interest of justice, in as
901.FA.255.2025 C.doc
much as, this is a case compulsory acquisition and just and proper
compensation for such acquisition is a must. He submitted that though the
Appeal was filed belatedly, in the year 2019, the Appellants have already
filed an affidavit in this Court undertaking that they will not claim interest
on enhanced compensation, if so granted after re-hearing the Reference on
merits, from April 2012 till September 2018 when the present Appeal and
delay condonation application was filed. He submitted that, however, the
interest for time spent during the pendency of the delay condonation
application, which is allowed on 20/01/2025 (period from September 2018
till January 2025), should not be excluded and at least the Appellants are
not ready to undertake to waive interest for that period. He submitted that
during this period, the Respondent-State had an opportunity of moving the
Application and inviting early order on delay condonation. He has relied
upon the judgment of Dhiraj Singh (Dead) through Legal Representatives
and Others vs. State of Haryana and Other [(2014) 14 SCC 127], in support
of his submissions that equities can always be balanced by denying the
interest to the Appellants for the appropriate period, for which they did not
approach the Court and substantive rights should not be allowed to be
defeated on technical ground. He further relied upon the order dated
27/06/2017 passed in FA/1212/2016 in case of Hanumant Shivagonda
Billur & Anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 9, Sangli and Ors order
dated 08/12/2021 passed in FA/572/2021 and the case of Dhondiram
Mahadev Pandre @ Pandhare (Since Deceased) through LRs vs. Special Land
Acquisition Officer No. 9, Sangli and Ors. Order dated 08/12/2021 in
FA/572/2021 in support of his submissions. He submits that the order in
Padhare's case (supra) is arising from the same village in which present suit
property is situated.
901.FA.255.2025 C.doc
5. Learned Addl. G.P Mr. Patil, on the other hand, submitted that though
an undertaking is filed by the Appellants, interest for the period for the
period during which even the delay condonation application was pending
and period for which the Reference will remain pending after remand,
should not be saddled upon the State. He has submitted that interest under
section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, which is 15% p.a. from the 2 nd year
from the date of award, cannot be saddled upon the State for the delay
caused due to delay condonation, late approaching to the Court, pendency
of the proceedings as well as pendency after remand. He relied upon the
order 07/10/2011 passed by this Court in FA/563/2001 in State of
Maharashtra vs. Sou. Manik Subhash Nerurkar - Kulkarni and Another in
support of his submissions.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions and I have gone through
the records with the assistance of learned Counsel for the parties.
7. At the outset, it must be noted that the Appellants have approached
this Court in the present Appeal after a long period of 6 year and 80 days by
filing delay condonation Application. Procedural pendency of the delay
condonation application is the outcome of delay caused, in the first place. As
such, the period for which delay condonation remained pending, cannot be
blamed on anybody else but the Appellants, who approached the Appellate
Court belatedly, requiring the Court as well as the Respondent-State to
engage in the process of its hearing.
8. Perusal of Hanumant Shivagonda Billur (supra) indicates that in that
case also, this Court allowed the Appeal and remanded the case to Reference
Court on the condition that the Appellant will not claim interest on the
901.FA.255.2025 C.doc
enhanced amount from the date of award. Similarly, in Dhondiram Mahadev
Pandhare (supra) it is seen that undertaking relied upon by this Court
indicated that Claimant/Appellant therein had undertaken not to claim
interest on the enhanced amount, if any, from the date of impugned award
till decision in the Reference Court.
9. In case of Manik Subhash Nerurkar - Kulkarni (supra) relied upon by
the Respondent-State, it is seen that on remand of Appeal, the interest
component, not payable by the State was restricted only to Section 28 of the
Land Acquisition Act and the Claimants were held entitled to claim other
statutory benefits in accordance with law.
10. In the facts and circumstances narrated above, in my view the State
cannot be blamed for the period for which delay condonation application
remained pending and further pendency that may occur in the Reference
Court after remand. The view taken by this Court in Manik Subhash
Nerurkar - Kulkarni (supra) appears to be a balanced view, in which only
the interest under section 28 of the said Act is held not payable but
claimants are held entitled to other statutory benefits in accordance with
law.
11. Therefore, considering the overall facts and considering that remand
is necessary for decision on merits about compensation, following order will
meet the ends of justice. The Appeal is disposed of in following terms.
(a) The Appeal is partly allowed.
(b) The impugned judgment and award dated 11/04/2012 passed
in Land Acquisition Case No. 89 of 2008 by the Civil Judge, Senior
901.FA.255.2025 C.doc
Division, Sangali is quashed and set aside. The said Reference is
restored to the file. Parties to the Reference are entitled to lead further
evidence.
(c) In view of the undertaking filed by the Appellants, as well as the
view taken above, in the event the Appellants succeed in getting the
amount of compensation enhanced in the Reference, the Appellants
shall not be entitled to claim interest under section 28 of the said Act
from the date the impugned award till the decision by the Reference
Court after remand. It is clarified that Appellants will be entitled to
claim other statutory benefits in accordance with law.
(d) Hearing of the Reference is expedited. The Reference Court is
requested to dispose of the Reference in accordance with law, till end
of this year i.e. 31/12/2025.
(e) No order as to the costs.
12. Appellants are at liberty to bring this order to the notice of the
Reference Court. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally
signed copy of this order.
(M. M. SATHAYE, J.)
