Bombay High Court
The State Of Mahrashtra Through The ... vs Shri.Budhya Balu Patil(Since ... on 10 October, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:44382
KVM
1/4
29 - FAST 3896 OF 2017.doc
Digitally signed IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
KANCHAN by KANCHAN
VINOD
VINOD MAYEKAR
MAYEKAR Date: 2025.10.13
20:36:14 +0530
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 3896 OF 2017
ALONGWITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3424 OF 2017
ALONGWITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3423 OF 2017
IN
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 3896 OF 2017
The State of Maharashtra,
(Thr. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
District Collector, Raigad-Alibag) ..... Appellant/
Applicant
VERSUS
Budhya Balu Patil
(Since deceased) Thr. Legal heirs
Pavasubai Budhaji Patil & Ors. ..... Respondents
Mr. A.R.Patil, Addl.G.P. for the State - Appellant.
CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 10 OCTOBER, 2025
P.C. :-
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3423 OF 2017
1) Office remark shows that the respondents are duly served.
None appeared for the respondents when the matter is called out.
2) This Civil Application is filed by the Acquiring body
seeking condonation of delay of 2 years and 295 days in filing the
First Appeal.
KVM
29 - FAST 3896 OF 2017.doc
3) Heard Mr. Patil, Additional Government Pleader for the
State and I have gone through the contents of the application.
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
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
KVM
29 - FAST 3896 OF 2017.doc
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
Civil Application and the law laid down in above judgments, a case is
made out to allow the Civil Application.
8) The Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause
(b) and disposed of accordingly.
KVM
29 - FAST 3896 OF 2017.doc
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 3896 OF 2017
9) This First Appeal has been filed challenging the Judgment
and Award dated 12 November, 2013 passed by the Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Alibag in Land Acquisition Reference No. 69 of 2004.
10) Acquisition of the land pertains to the notification dated 3
February, 1970 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.
The land pertains to Village Panvel, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad for
the purpose of 'New Bombay Project'.
11) Heard learned counsel for both the sides.
12) Admit.
13) 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.
14) 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
sent to the High Court when called for.
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3424 OF 2017
15) Stand over to 27 November, 2025.
[RAJESH S. PATIL, J.]
