Bombay High Court
The State Of Marharashtra Through ... vs Kai.Banubai Devidas Thakur-Dead ... on 29 September, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:41464
KVM
1/5
24 - FAST 16656 OF 2019.doc
Digitally signed
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
by KANCHAN
KANCHAN VINOD
MAYEKAR
VINOD Date:
MAYEKAR 2025.09.30
14:03:22
+0530
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 16656 OF 2019
ALONGWITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3002 OF 2019
ALONGWITH
CROSS OBJECTION (ST) NO. 33750 OF 2024
IN
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 16656 OF 2019
The State of Maharashtra,
Thr. The Deputy Collector ..... Appellant/
Applicant
VERSUS
Kai. Banubai Devidas Thakur
(Deceased) Thr. Kai B.D.Thakur
(Deceased) Thr. L.Rs.
Smt. Vithabai Baburao Thakur & Ors. ..... Respondents
Mr. A.R.Patil, Addl. G.P. for the Applicants.
Mr. Hemanand Ghadigaonkar for the Respondents.
CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 29 SEPTEMBER, 2025
P.C. :-
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3002 OF 2019
1) This Civil Application is filed to condone delay of 1 year
and 94 days in filing the First Appeal.
2) Heard learned counsel for both sides and I have gone
through the contents of the application and more particularly para
KVM
24 - FAST 16656 OF 2019.doc
no.3 which runs around one and half pages.
3) 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."
4) 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
resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly.
5) Bombay High Court in the judgment of Kamalbai
KVM
24 - FAST 16656 OF 2019.doc
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."
6) 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.
7) The Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause
(b) and disposed of accordingly.
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 16656 OF 2019
8) This First Appeal has been filed challenging the Judgment
KVM
24 - FAST 16656 OF 2019.doc
and Award dated 11 September, 2017 passed by the Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Alibag in Land Acquisition Reference No. 274 of
2016.
9) Acquisition of the land pertains to the notification dated
25 July, 1991 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The
land pertains to Village Shemtikhar, Taluka Uran, District Raigad for
the purpose of 'New Bombay Project'.
10) Heard learned advocates for both the sides.
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
sent to the High Court when called for.
CROSS OBJECTION (ST) NO. 33750 OF 2024
14) This Cross Objection is filed by the original claimants, in
First Appeal (St) No. 16656 of 2019.
15) Heard learned advocates appearing for both the sides.
KVM
24 - FAST 16656 OF 2019.doc
16) Admit.
17) To be heard alongwith First Appeal (St) No. 16656 of
2019.
18) The original claimants are permitted to file private
compilation of the documents.
[RAJESH S. PATIL, J.]
