[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Shadrubai @ Shobhabai Wd/O Sheshrao ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 7 January, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:282
1 28-wp-5893-23.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5893 OF 2023
Shadrubai @ Shobhabai Wd/o. Sheshrao Waghmode and other
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and others
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A. B. Darekar, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri N. R. Rode, AGP for respondent nos. 1 and 2/State.
Shri Vinay Rathi h/f. Shri P. B. Patil, Advocate for respondent no. 3.
CORAM :- M. W. CHANDWANI, J.
DATED :- 07.01.2026
Heard the learned counsels for the respective
parties.
2. The present petition is filed challenging the
order dated 04.11.2016 below Exh.1 & Exh.22 in LAC
No. 238/2005 and order dated 12.06.2018 in MJC No.
1121/2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior
Division, Akola.
3. The application was moved for setting aside
abatement and bringing legal representatives on record
of deceased claimant- Sheshrao Kisan Waghmode who
died on 30.01.2013. The only reason for rejecting the
application given is that the applicant has failed to give
reasonable explanation for said delay and valuable right
RR Jaiswal
2 28-wp-5893-23.odt
has accrued in favour of Government due to delay on the
part of applicants.
4. It appears that application is filed on
05.08.2016. It is mentioned in paragraph No.3 of the said
application that they were not aware about the filing of
the claim petition by the deceased- Sheshrao. The
petitioners got knowledge of claim petition when the
counsel for deceased- Sheshrao sent message to them to
remain present before the Court for adducing evidence.
5. The learned counsel for petitioners relied on
following citations:
i) Krushnarao Champatrao Nagle (dead), through its
LR's and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through
the Collector Yavamal and another in Civil Application
(CAF) No.2325/2022 in First Appeal St. No.15780/2022.
ii) Writ Petition No.7739/2018 (Late Ramlal s/o
sadashiv Kaware, through his LR's Vs. the Special Land
Acquisition Officer, Akola and another); and
iii) Writ Petition No.577/2023 (Late Gumfabai
Narayan Pahurkar, Late Shreeram Narayan Pahurkar and
late Vijay N. Pahurkar thr. LR's Vs. the State of Maha. Thr.
Collector, akola and ors.).
6. In Krushnarao Champatrao Nagle (dead),
through its LR's and others (supra), this Court placed
reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in
Imratlal and Ors. Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and ors.
RR Jaiswal
3 28-wp-5893-23.odt
[(2014) 14 SCC 133], wherein Hon'ble Apex Court
observed in paragraph No.11 which is reproduced
hereunder for reference :-
"11. We can take judicial notice of the fact that villagers
in our country are by and large illiterate and are not
conversant with the intricacies of law. They are usually
guided by their co- villagers, who are familiar with the
proceedings in the Courts or the advocates with whom
they get in touch for redressal of their grievance. Affidavits
filed in support of the applications for condonation of
delay are usually drafted by the advocates on the basis of
half baked information made available by the affected
persons. Therefore, in the acquisition matters involving
claim for award of just compensation, the Court should
adopt a liberal approach and either grant time to the party
to file better affidavit to explain delay or suo motu take
cognizance of the fact that large number of other similarly
situated persons who were affected by the determination
of compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer or the
Reference Court have been granted relief."
7. The common principle which arises after
considering all the judgments is that judicial notice of the
fact can be taken that villagers in our country are by and
large illiterate and are not conversant with the intricacies
of law. It is also well settled that a liberal and pragmatic
approach is to be taken while considering the delay
application and no pedantic approach is appreciable. In
the above-referred citations, huge delay is condoned on
condition of waiver of interest. Considering a delay of
near about 3 years in the present matter, it would be
appropriate to condone. However, the petitioners will not
be entitled to the interest for the delayed period.
8. In view of the above, the petitioners, who
are the legal representatives of deceased- Sheshrao
Waghmode are entitled to be brought on record.
RR Jaiswal
4 28-wp-5893-23.odt
9. The order dated 04.11.2016 below Exhibit-1
& 22 in L.A.C. No.238/2005 and order dated 12.06.2018
in M.J.C. No. 1121/2016 passed by the learned Civil
Judge Senior Division, Akola are hereby quashed and set
aside.
10. The petitioners are allowed to substitute
their names in place of deceased-claimant. The
petitioners shall not be entitled to the interest on the
amount of award for the delayed period in case the
award is enhanced.
11. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
(M. W. CHANDWANI, J.)
Signed by: Mr. Rajnesh Jaiswal
RRToJaiswal
Designation: PA Honourable Judge
Date: 09/01/2026 17:32:24
