Bombay High Court
The Executive Engineer Hetvane Dam ... vs Hanifa Mehmud Devlekar(Since ... on 1 October, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:42130
KVM
1/5
37 - FAST 13791 OF 2023.doc
Digitally signed
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
by KANCHAN
KANCHAN VINOD
VINOD MAYEKAR
MAYEKAR Date:
2025.10.03
14:20:41 +0530
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 13791 OF 2023
ALONGWITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 8949 OF 2024
ALONGWITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 8950 OF 2024
IN
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 13791 OF 2023
The Executive Engineer,
Hetvane Dam Division Kolad, Raigad ..... Applicant
VERSUS
Hanifa Mehmud Devlekar
(Since deceased)
Aadam Mehmud Devlekar & Ors. ..... Respondents
Ms.Chaitrali Deshmukh for the Applicant.
Mr.A.R.Patil, Addl. G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 - State.
CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 1 OCTOBER, 2025
P.C. :-
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 8949 OF 2024
1) This Interim Application is filed by the Acquiring body
seeking condonation of delay of 4 years and 232 days in filing the
First Appeal.
2) Office remark shows that the respondent nos. 2 to 7 are
duly served. The respondent nos. 2 to 7 are the legal heirs of the
KVM
37 - FAST 13791 OF 2023.doc
respondent no.1. None appeared on behalf of the duly served
respondent nos. 2 to 7. The State is being represented by Mr.Patil,
learned Additional Government Pleader.
3) Heard learned counsel for both sides and I have gone
through the contents of the application and more particularly para
no.5.
4) Supreme Court in the judgment of Collector, Land
Acquisition, Anantnag and another Vs. Mst. Katji and Others reported
in 1987 SC 1353, has held that:
"Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a
pedantic approach should be made. Why not every house's
delay. Every second's delay ? The doctrine must be applied in a
rational common sense pragmatic manner."
5) Supreme Court in the case of S. Ganesharaju (Dead)
through Lrs V. Narasamma (Dead) through Lrs reported in (2013) 11
SCC 341, more specifically, paragraph Nos. 12 and 13, of the said
judgment held that a liberal construction to the cause of delay should
be given. The said paragraphs are reproduced herein below:
12. The expression "sufficient cause" as appearing in Section 5
of the Limitation Act, 1963, has to be given a liberal
construction so as to advance substantial justice. Unless the
respondents are able to show malafides in not approaching the
court within the period of limitation, generally as a normal rule,
delay should be condoned. The trend of the courts while
KVM
37 - FAST 13791 OF 2023.doc
dealing with the matter with regard to condonation of delay has
tilted more towards condoning delay and directing the parties
to contest the matter on merits, meaning thereby that such
technicalities have been given go-by.
13. The rules of limitation are not meant to destroy or foreclose
the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not
resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly.
6) Bombay High Court in the judgment of Kamalbai
Narasaiyya Shrimal and Another Vs. Ganpat Vithalrao Gavare reported
in 2007 (1) MH. L.J. 807, paragraph Nos.13 and 15 has held:
13. The factual position is manifestly clear on bare perusal of
the application for condonation filed by the petitioners before
the learned District Judge. The only relevant statement in the
application is thus:
"The delay caused in preferring the appeal is of six months. The
caused delay is not intentional one. The appellants are poor and
helpless persons. If the delay is not condoned appellant may
cause irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in terms of
money. The suit was for recovery of possession and present
appellants are tenants. If the delay is not condoned then
appellants will become shelterless."
15. The expression "sufficient cause" cannot be erased from
section of the Limitation Act by adopting excessive liberal
approach which would defeat the very purpose of section 5 of
the Limitation Act. There must be some cause which can be
termed as a sufficient one for the purpose of delay condonation.
I do not find any such "sufficient cause" stated in the
application and as such no interference in the impugned order
is called for."
7) According to me, considering the submissions made in the
Interim Application and the law laid down in above judgments, a case
KVM
37 - FAST 13791 OF 2023.doc
is made out to allow the Civil Application.
8) The Interim Application is allowed in terms of prayer
clause (b) and disposed of accordingly.
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 13791 OF 2023
9) This First Appeal has been filed challenging the Judgment
and Award dated 18 June, 2018 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Alibag-Mahad in Land Acquisition Reference No. 112 of
2005.
10) Acquisition of the land pertains to the notification dated
10 April, 2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The
land pertains to Village Bhomjai, Taluka Mahad, District Raigad for the
purpose of 'Nageshwari Minor Irrigation Project'.
11) Admit.
12) The Appellants to file private paper-book within a period
of six months from today. A copy of the same to be served on other
side.
13) Soft copy of R & P be sent by the trial Court to the High
Court within 4 weeks from today. Original R & P should be preserved
by the trial Court till further orders of this Court. Original R & P to be
KVM
37 - FAST 13791 OF 2023.doc
sent to the High Court when called for.
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 8950 OF 2024
14) This Interim Application is filed seeking stay to the
execution of the Judgment and Award dated 18 June, 2018 passed by
the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alibag-Mahad in Land Acquisition
Reference No. 112 of 2005.
15) Stand over to 15 October, 2025.
[RAJESH S. PATIL, J.]
