Bombay High Court
State Of Maharashtra Thr. The Deputy ... vs Shankar Narayan Gharat And Ors. on 29 September, 2025
KVM
1/5
25-FA(ST)-2210-2021.doc
Digitally signed
by KANCHAN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
KANCHAN VINOD
MAYEKAR
VINOD Date:
MAYEKAR 2025.09.30
14:03:22
+0530 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.2210 OF 2021
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.949 OF 2021
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.948 OF 2021
WITH
CROSS OBJECTION (ST) NO.15333 OF 2025
IN
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.2210 OF 2021
The State Of Maharashtra
(Through The Deputy
Collector (Land Acquisition)
Metro Center No.1 .....Appellant/Applicant
VERSUS
Shankar Narayan Gharat & Ors. .... Respondents
Mr. A.R.Patil, Addl. G.P. for the Applicant.
Mr.Shubham Gangan i/b. Mr.Saurabh Butala for the Respondent
Nos.1, 2/1 and 3.
CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 29 SEPTEMBER, 2025
P.C. :-
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.948 OF 2021
1) This Interim Application is filed to condone delay of 1
year and 145 days in filing the First Appeal.
2) Heard Mr.Patil, Additional Government Pleader and Mr.
KVM
25-FA(ST)-2210-2021.doc
Gangan for the respondent nos. 1, 2/1 and 3 and I have gone through
the contents of the application and more particularly para no.2 which
runs around seven 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
KVM
25-FA(ST)-2210-2021.doc
resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly.
5) 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."
6) According to me, considering the submissions made in the
Interim Application and the law laid down in above judgments, a case
is made out to allow the Interim Application.
7) The Interim Application is allowed in terms of prayer
clause (b) and disposed of accordingly.
KVM
25-FA(ST)-2210-2021.doc
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.2210 OF 2021
8) This First Appeal has been filed challenging the Judgment
and Award dated 2 May, 2019 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Alibag in Land Acquisition Reference No. 54 of 2017.
9) Acquisition of the land pertains to the notification dated
24 September, 1986 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act. The land pertains to Village Funde, 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.
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.949 OF 2021
14) This Interim Application is filed seeking stay to the
execution of the Judgment and Award dated 2 May, 2019 passed by
KVM
25-FA(ST)-2210-2021.doc
the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alibag in Land Acquisition
Reference No. 54 of 2017.
15) Subject to the State depositing the entire award amount
alongwith accrued interest within a period of twelve weeks from today
in the Reference Court, there will be stay to the execution of the
Judgment and Award dated 2 May, 2019 passed by the Joint Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Alibag in Land Acquisition Reference No. 54
of 2017.
CROSS OBJECTION (ST) NO.15333 OF 2025
16) This Cross Objection is filed by the original claimants, in
First Appeal (St) No. 2210 of 2021.
17) Heard learned advocates appearing for both the sides.
18) Admit.
19) To be heard alongwith First Appeal (St) No. 2210 of
2021.
20) The original claimants are permitted to file private
compilation of the documents.
[RAJESH S. PATIL, J.]
