Bombay High Court
Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) ... vs Smt. Kalpana W/O Parasram Ade And Others on 20 January, 2025
Author: Nitin B. Suryawanshi
Bench: Nitin B. Suryawanshi
2025:BHC-NAG:593-DB
caf 1927.24.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CIVIL APPLICATION (CAF) NO. 1927/2024
IN
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 8383/2024
WITH
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 8383/2024
Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction)
Central Railway, Ajani, Nagpur,
Tah. & Dist. Nagpur.
...APPELLANT
On R.A.
(Org. Respondent No.3.)
VERSUS
1. Smt. Kalpana w/o. Parasram Ade,
On R.A.
aged 63 yrs., Occ. Agriculturist (Org. Petitioner)
R/o. Matruvandan, Darda Nagar,
Yavatmal Tah. & Dist. Yavatmal
2. State of Maharashtra
through the Collector, (Org. Respondent No.1.)
Tah. & Dist. Yavatmal.
3. The Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition
Officer) Road Project Yavatmal (Org. Respondent No.2.)
Tah. & Dist. Yavatmal.
RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. V.M. Gadkari, Advocate for appellant.
Mr. A.B. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. S.V. Sohani, Advocate for intervenor
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
caf 1927.24.odt
2
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
M. W. CHANDWANI, JJ
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 06.01.2025
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 20.01.2025
JUDGMENT :
(PER: NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI , J.)
Heard.
2. By this appeal filed under Section 74 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Settlement Act, 2013 (for short "the Act, 2013") read with Section
96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellant-acquiring body
challenges enhanced compensation awarded by the Maharashtra Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Nagpur on
26.03.2021 during pandemic of Covid 19 in Land Acquisition Case
No. 1043/AMT/YTL/2018.
3. Since there is a delay in filing appeal, Civil Application No.
1972/2024 in First Appeal (St) No. 8383/2024 was filed under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of 722 days.
caf 1927.24.odt
4. Learned Advocate for appellant/applicant submits that delay
of 722 days caused in filing the present appeal is not intentional. The
certified copy of the impugned judgment and award was forwarded to
the Head Office, situated at Mumbai for information and further
course of action. After getting approval from the competent authority,
the appeal was filed. However, during said process, delay of 722 days
was caused in filing the appeal. Since delay to the extent of 60 days
only can be condoned under the proviso to Section 74 of the Act,
2013, application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for
condonation of delay is filed which is maintainable and for the reasons
stated in the application, delay is liable to be condoned.
5. The first respondent by filing reply-affidavit has opposed the
delay condonation application and has raised the issue of
maintainability of such application under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act. Relying on proviso to Section 74 of the Act, 2013, it is submitted
that the Act, 2013 being a special statute and the same being a
complete Code itself, the High Court cannot condone the delay more
than 60 days. Section 74 of the Act, 2013 prescribes limitation of 60
days in filing appeal to the High Court. It is submitted that the Act,
caf 1927.24.odt
2013 being a special statute and since specific period of limitation is
prescribed for preferring the appeal, Section 5 of the Limitation Act is
inapplicable to the appeal filed under the Act, 2013. In support of
said submission, reliance is placed on the Division Bench of the
Karnataka High Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner and
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangaluru Vs. S.V. Global Mill
Limited, Chennai, 2019 SCC Online Kar 3160.
By relying on section 76 of the Act, 2013, it is submitted
that if the there is any dispute in respect of apportionment of the
compensation amount or any part thereof, the Collector can refer such
dispute to the Authority.
Civil Application No. 2092/2024 is filed by the interveners
seeking their impleadment as respondents, as they have interest in the
acquired property.
6. Learned Advocate for the interveners submits that the
property acquired by appellant was ancestral property and interveners
have filed Special Civil Suit No. 21/2017 for partition of the ancestral
property. It is contended in the suit that the acquired field Survey No.
51/10 was originally belong to Smt. Satyabhamabai wd/o.
caf 1927.24.odt
Purshottamdasji Bajoriya who happened to be grandmother of
defendant No.1 Prashant Bajoriya. She executed a Will in favour of
her son Bhagwandasji and two grand sons i.e. deceased Bharat and
defendant No.1 Prashant. After death of Bharat by playing fraud,
Bhagwandas and defendant No.1 Prashant sold the said property to
defendant No.5 Pravin Rathod, behind the back of plaintiffs.
Defendant No.5 Pravin Rathod gifted this property to the defendant
No.6 Kalpana Ade. Therefore, the interveners/plaintiffs raised
objection to the illegal transfer of the said property by Bhagwandas
and defendant No.1 Prashant in favour of defendant No.5 Pravin
Rathod and also transferred of the said land by defendant Nos. 5 to 6.
In the said suit, application (Exh.88) seeking temporary injunction
was filed which came to be rejected by the Trial Court vide order
dated 06.03.2024 observing that order of status-quo will suffice in the
matter, if any such application is moved by the plaintiffs. It is
submitted that accordingly, application (Exh. 124) is filed before the
Trial Court seeking status-quo which is pending for consideration of
the Trial Court. It is further submitted that respondent No.1 has
already withdrawn an amount Rs. 2,76,16,626/- awarded by the Land
caf 1927.24.odt
Acquisition Officer. The interveners, therefore, submit that remaining
amount of compensation may not be permitted to be withdrawn by
respondent No.1 and it may be made subject to the decision of the
civil suit.
In support of intervention application, reliance is placed on
the Apex Court's decision in cases of Ramdas Vs. Sitabai and others,
(2009) 7 SCC 444 and Subhodkumar and others Vs. Bhagwant
Namdeorao Mehetre and others, (2007) 10 SCC 571 . It is pointed
that by order dated 27.05.2022 passed by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer, objection raised by Bharti Bajoria and Chetan
Bajoria.
Learned Advocate for respondent No.1 vehemently opposed
the intervention application.
7 Application No. 3535/2024 is filed by respondent No.1 for
withdrawal of compensation amount of Rs. 41,86,60,700/-.
8. Heard learned Advocate for appellant, learned Advocate for
respondent No.1 and learned Advocate for interveners at length.
Perused the applications filed by the parties along with annexures,
appeal memo and the impugned judgment and award.
caf 1927.24.odt
9. From the rival submissions, the question which falls for
consideration in the present matter is "Whether the High Court can
condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act beyond the
period of limitation prescribed under Section 74 of the Act, 2013?"
This question was considered by the Division Bench of this Court at
Bombay in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs. Anusaya
Sitaram Devrukhkar and others, (Interim Application
No.13254/2024 in First Appeal (ST.) No. 24058/2024 in Reference
No. 827/KOK/MUM(SOB)/2021 with connected matter, decided on
07.01.2025) and it is held that, "beyond the total period of 120 days as
stipulated in Section 74(1) (read with its proviso) of the Act, 2013,
this Court has no power to condone the delay." In this view of the
matter, the application seeking condonation of delay of 722 days is
dismissed.
10. Interveners have already filed Special Civil Suit No. 21/2017
seeking partition of the ancestral property, which includes the acquired
property, for which compensation is deposited by the appellant.
Respondent No.1 Kalpana Ade is a Defendant No.6 in the said suit. In
the said suit, gift deed executed in favour for respondent No.1 is also
caf 1927.24.odt
challenged, so also, the title deeds of the property under acquisition.
Application (Exh. 125) filed by the interveners seeking status-quo in
respect of the amount of compensation filed on 27.03.2024 is pending
before the Trial Court.
Though the application for withdrawal of amount filed by
respondent No.1 is vehemently opposed by the interveners,
considering the fact that, interveners have claimed 1/3rd share in the
ancestral property and also in the property under acquisition, we are
inclined to permit respondent No.1 50% out of total compensation
amount deposited in this Court.
11. Civil application No. 3535/2024 in First Appeal (ST) No.
8383/2024 for withdrawal of amount filed by respondent No.1 is
partly allowed by permitting the respondent No.1/applicant to
withdraw 25% of deposited amount along with proportionate interest
thereon on furnishing usual undertaking and 25% of deposited
amount along with proportionate interest thereon on furnishing
solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Registrar (Judicial).
Balance compensation amount be kept in fixed deposit till
decision of the suit.
caf 1927.24.odt
At this stage, interveners requested for stay of this order for a
period of six weeks. For the reasons stated in the application, prayer is
rejected.
12. In the peculiar facts, we direct learned Civil Judge, (Senior
Division), Yavatmal to decide the special civil suit No. 21/2017 within
period of one year from the date of receipt of this order. The parties are
directed to remain present before the Trial Court on 01.02.2025.
Intervention application i.e. Civil Application No.
2092/2024 is disposed of in the above terms.
13. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any
opinion on merits of the claim of interveners or respondent No.1 and
other defendants in the suit.
(M. W. CHANDWANI, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)
Gohane
Signed by: Mr. J. B. Gohane
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 21/01/2025 10:57:39
