Bombay High Court
Raosaheb Bhimrao Jadhav vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 26 February, 2019
Author: P.R. Bora
Bench: P.R. Bora
CA 1593/2012 & Ors
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
904 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1593 OF 2012
IN X-OBJST/160/2012
SITARAM GULABCHAND AGRAWAL
VERSUS
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL THROUGH CHIEF OFFICER
...
905 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6789 OF 2012
IN X-OBJST/13679/2012
GOPAL VASANT SURWASE AND ANR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
...
906 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1895 OF 2013
IN X-OBJST/2512/2013 WITH FA/2304/2010 WITH
FA/2307/2010 WITH FA/2309/2010 WITH FA/2310/2010 WITH
FA/2311/2010 WITH FA/2312/2010 WITH CA/6184/2011 IN
FA/2312/2010 WITH FA/2316/2010 WITH FA/2317/2010 WITH
FA/2318/2010 WITH FA/2319/2010 WITH FA/2320/2010 WITH
CA/9697/2012 IN X-OBJST/20738/2012
SIDDAPPA BASWANT MALGE, DIED THR. L.RS. VIRBHADRA AND
ORS
VERSUS
THE M.I.D.C. THROUGH DIVISIONAL /REGIONAL OFFICER LATUR
AND ORS
...
907 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4994 OF 2013
IN X-OBJST/33715/2012 WITH CA/1980/2012 IN FA/268/2012
MANJUBAI PRAVINKUMAR KHANDELWAL AND ORS
VERSUS
M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
...
908 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5714 OF 2013
IN X-OBJST/12263/2013
USHA ANIL PATIL
VERSUS
JAYSHREE TEJRAO DHAGE AND ANR
...
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 23:13:35 :::
CA 1593/2012 & Ors
(2)
909 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6100 OF 2013
IN X-OBJST/12774/2013
PREMSINH HAMBARSINH GIRASE(DEAD) LRS NAVALSINH
HAMBARSINH GIRASE AND ORS
VERSUS
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DHULE MEDIUM PROJET NO. 1
...
910 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8669 OF 2013
IN X-OBJST/17159/2013
LAXMAN DAYARAM KHACHANE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
911 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10522 OF 2013
IN X-OBJST/22376/2013
ABDUL HAQ ABDUL KARIM DIED TH LRS SAMIR ABDUL HAQ
DESHMUKH AND ORS
VERSUS
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, DHULE AND OTHERS
...
912 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10891 OF 2013
IN X-OBJST/22358/2013
BAHIDAS HILAL PATIL
VERSUS
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, DHULE AND OTHERS
...
913 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.15663 OF 2013
IN X-OBJST/29675/2013 WITH CA/6978/2010 IN FA/1953/2011
RAOSAHEB BHIMRAO JADHAV
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
914 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.833 OF 2014
IN X-OBJST/21367/2013
KAMALBAI GANGARAM PATIL
VERSUS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, DHULE
AND ANOTHER
...
915 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.839 OF 2014
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 23:13:35 :::
CA 1593/2012 & Ors
(3)
IN X-OBJST/21377/2013
BHAUSAHEB POPAT KHAIRNAR AND ANR
VERSUS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION AND
ANOTHER
...
916 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.840 OF 2014
IN X-OBJST/29685/2013
MAHADU RAMA BIRAJDAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
917 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.841 OF 2014
IN X-OBJST/21657/2013
SUSHILABAI RAGHUNATH KHAIRNAR
VERSUS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION AND
ANOTHER
...
918 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.842 OF 2014
IN X-OBJST/21382/2013
HIRALAL KASHINATH PATIL AND ORS
VERSUS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, DHULE
AND ANOTHER
...
919 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.843 OF 2014
IN X-OBJST/21659/2013
CHANDRABHAN RAGHUNATH PATIL
VERSUS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION AND
ANOTHER
...
920 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.845 OF 2014
IN X-OBJST/29674/2013
BALIRAM RAMAJI BIRAJDAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
921 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2228 OF 2014
IN X-OBJST/1788/2014
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 23:13:35 :::
CA 1593/2012 & Ors
(4)
DIWAN NIMBA GIRASE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS.
...
922 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2969 OF 2014
IN X-OBJST/13645/2009 IN FA/553/2009 WITH CA/1748/2008
IN FA/553/2009
SHANTABAI ATMARAM JADHAV
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAH AND ANR
...
923 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2970 OF 2014
IN X-OBJST/13640/2009 IN FA/548/2009 WITH CA/1726/2008
IN FA/548/2009
JAIDEV JYOTIRAM TANDLE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAH AND ANR
...
924 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2971 OF 2014
IN X-OBJST/13636/2009 IN FA/552/2009 WITH CA/1739/2008
IN FA/552/2009
ATMARAM SITARAM JADHAV
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAH AND ANR
...
925 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5138 OF 2014
IN X-OBJST/9779/2014
BABASAHEB NAMDEO KADAM DECEASED THRO. LRS. SATYAPREM
BABASAHEB KADAM
VERSUS
GODAVARI MARATHWADA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
BEED AND ANOTHER
...
926 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5139 OF 2014
IN X-OBJST/9787/2014
GHANSHAYM BHAURAO PAITHANE DECEASED THRO. LRS. BANSI
GHANSHYAM PAITHANE AND OTHER
VERSUS
GODAVARI MARATHWADA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
BEED AND ANOTHER
...
927 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8284 OF 2014
IN X-OBJST/9785/2014
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 23:13:35 :::
CA 1593/2012 & Ors
(5)
RAMESHSWAR NAMDEO PAITHANE AND AND OTHERS
VERSUS
GODAVARI MARATHWADA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION , BEED AND ANOTHER
...
928 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11965 OF 2014
IN X-OBJST/28116/2014
NANABHAU RAGHO BEDSE
VERSUS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MEDIUM PROJECT DIVISION NO.1 AND
ANOTHER
...
929 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12149 OF 2014
IN X-OBJST/28114/2014
SUNDARBAI RAGHO BEDSE SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS
NANBAHU RAGHO BEDSE
VERSUS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MEDIUM PROJECT DIVISION NO.1 DHULE
AND ANOTHER
...
930 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.309 OF 2015
IN X-OBJST/27052/2014
SURESH NATHU PATIL
VERSUS
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION DHULE
AND ANOTHER
...
931 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2497 OF 2015
IN X-OBJST/22823/2014
VISHWAS ANANDA DESALE
VERSUS
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER GENERAL AND
ANOTHER
...
932 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4123 OF 2015
IN X-OBJST/6013/2015 WITH CA/15665/2013 IN FA/46/2013
SHRIKANT SHRIPATI LOKHANDE
VERSUS
GMIDC THROUGH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER LIFT IRRIGATION
DIVNOSMANABAD AND OTHERS
...
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 23:13:35 :::
CA 1593/2012 & Ors
(6)
933 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5485 OF 2015
IN X-OBJST/23342/2014
NOOR MOHAMMAD CHINDHA DESHMUKH
VERSUS
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER DHULE AND OTHERS
...
934 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7681 OF 2015
IN X-OBJST/6015/2015
WALMIK SHRIPATI LOKHANDE
VERSUS
GMIDC THROUGH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER LIFT IRRIGATION
DIVNOSMANABAD
...
935 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7688 OF 2015
IN X-OBJST/6017/2015
DHONDIBA SHRIPATI LOKHANDE
VERSUS
GMIDC THROUGH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER LIFT IRRIGATION
DIVNOSMANABAD AND OTHERS
...
936 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9684 OF 2015
IN X-OBJST/12499/2015
NARMADABAI HIRALAL GUJARATHI DIED THR L.RS. NARAYAN
MOHANLAL GUJARATHI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
937 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14942 OF 2015
IN X-OBJST/33283/2015
BHAGWAN DEVIDAS NARWADE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAH AND ORS
...
938 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6251 OF 2016
IN X-OBJST/6580/2016
KAJAL SUBHASH KAMBLE
VERSUS
LATUR SOLVENT PVT. LTD. THR ITS PROP. SHAMTILAL
KISHANLAL SHABU AND ORS
...
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 23:13:35 :::
CA 1593/2012 & Ors
(7)
939 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6264 OF 2016
IN X-OBJST/25971/2015
GULAM DASTGIR DAUDSAHEB ANSARI AND ORS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...
940 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8475 OF 2016
IN X-OBJST/4473/2016 WITH CA/6107/2013 IN FA/1703/2015
WITH CA/6110/2013 IN FA/1704/2015 WITH CA/6112/2013 IN
FA/1708/2015 WITH CA/6114/2013 IN FA/1706/2015 WITH
CA/6116/2013 IN FA/1707/2015 WITH CA/6118/2013 IN
FA/1712/2015 WITH CA/6120/2013 IN FA/1711/2015 WITH
CA/6122/2013 IN FA/1710/2015 WITH CA/6124/2013 IN
FA/1709/2015 WITH CA/6126/2013 IN FA/1705/2015 WITH
CA/8477/2016 IN X-OBJST/4486/2016 WITH CA/8478/2016 IN
X-OBJST/4495/2016 WITH CA/8479/2016 IN X-
OBJST/4476/2016 WITH CA/8480/2016 IN X-OBJST/4471/2016
WITH CA/8481/2016 IN X-OBJST/4478/2016 WITH
CA/8482/2016 IN X-OBJST/4489/2016 WITH CA/8483/2016 IN
X-OBJST/4492/2016 WITH CA/8484/2016 IN X-
OBJST/4481/2016 WITH CA/8485/2016 IN X-OBJST/4484/2016
BHASKAR RAMKISHAN KOMPLE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
941 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8486 OF 2016
IN X-OBJST/10455/2016
SUBHASH GYANOBA JADHAV DIED THR LRS NIRMALABAI AND ORS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
...
942 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8488 OF 2016
IN X-OBJST/10453/2016
WAMAN GYANOBA JADHAV AND ORS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
...
943 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8489 OF 2016
IN X-OBJST/10461/2016
VAIJANATH HAVGIRAO BIRADAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 23:13:35 :::
CA 1593/2012 & Ors
(8)
...
944 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8490 OF 2016
IN X-OBJST/10447/2016
GANPAT BAPURAO MANDUMALE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
...
945 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8499 OF 2016
IN X-OBJST/10459/2016
VASANTRAO BAPURAO SAGAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
...
946 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8500 OF 2016
IN X-OBJST/10465/2016
SHANKAR BAPURAO MANDUMALE SAGAR AND ORS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
...
947 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8502 OF 2016
IN X-OBJST/10451/2016
VITHAL HANMANTRAO KINE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
...
948 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8503 OF 2016
IN X-OBJST/10467/2016
SAMBHAJI MAROTI PATIL (JADHAV) AND ORS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
...
949 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8505 OF 2016
IN X-OBJST/10463/2016
ASHOK AMRUTRAO MORE AND ORS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
...
950 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8506 OF 2016
IN X-OBJST/10457/2016
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 23:13:35 :::
CA 1593/2012 & Ors
(9)
KASHINATH HAVGIRAO BIRADAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
...
951 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8507 OF 2016
IN X-OBJST/10469/2016
PRABHU GYANOBA MORE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
...
952 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8508 OF 2016
IN X-OBJST/10449/2016
NAMDEO VENKATRAO JADHAV
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
...
953 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9916 OF 2016
IN X-OBJST/16677/2016
SHANKUNTALABAI KISHAN SONAWANE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
GODAWARI MARATHWADA IRRIGATION DVELOPMENT
CORPORATIONAURANGABAD THROUGH ITS EXE
...
Advocate for Applicants : Respective counsel present
S/Shri AM Phule, PM Kulkarni and SJ Salgare, AGPs for
Respondent-State (in respective matters)
Respective Counsel for Respondent/s present
---
CORAM : P.R. BORA, J.
DATED : 26th February, 2019.
PER COURT:-
1. All these applications are filed seeking
condonation of delay, which has occurred in filing
the cross-objections by the respective original
claimants in respective appeals. The appeals are
filed either by the acquiring body or by the State
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 23:13:35 :::
CA 1593/2012 & Ors
(10)
Government against the judgments and Awards passed
in Land Acquisition References (LARs). The period
of delay varies in every application. In some
applications when the delay is of a shorter period,
delay caused in some of the matters is of a huge
period. In every application attempt has been made
to justify the said delay and variety of reasons
are assigned.
2. Under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 22 of Order 41
of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the
Code), a power has been conferred upon the
Appellate Court to extend the time to file cross-
objection. The Appellate court can grant such
further time as it may seem fit to allow.
3. The issue as about condonation of delay
in filing the cross-objection was for consideration
before this Court in the case of State of
Maharashtra Vs. Kalu Ladku Mhatre - 2011 (4)
Mh.L.J. 741. I deem it appropriate to reproduce
herein below the discussion made by this court in
regard to the said issue in paras 5 to 7 of the
said judgment, which read thus, -
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 23:13:35 :::
CA 1593/2012 & Ors
(11)
"5. I have given careful consideration
to the submissions. The first issue is
regarding the condonation of delay in
filing the Cross Objection. A Reference
will have to be made to Sub Rule (1) of
Rule 22 of Order XLI of the said Code
which reads thus:
" Any respondent, though he may not
have appealed from any part of the
decree, may not only support the
decree [but may also state that the
finding against him in the Court
below in respect of any issue ought
to have been in his favour; and may
also take any cross-objection] to
the decree which he could have taken
by way of appeal, provided he has
filed such objection in the
Appellate Court within one month
from the date of service on him or
his pleader of notice of the day
fixed for hearing the appeal, or
within such further time as the
Appellate Court may see fit to
allow."
6. Thus, under Sub Rule (1) of Rule 22
of Order XLI of the said Code, a power
has been conferred upon the Appellate
Court to extend the time to file Cross
Objection. The Appellate Court can
grant such further time as it may see
fit to allow. The Sub-Rule (1) of Rule
22 does not lay down that sufficient
cause is required to be shown by the
respondent. As the said Code vests the
power to extend the time to file Cross-
Objection in the Appellate Court, it is
not at all necessary for the respondent
in Appeal to invoke Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963. Section 5 of the
Limitation Act reads thus:
"Extension of prescribed period of
certain cases - Any appeal or any
application, other than an
application under any of the
provisions of Order XXI of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be
admitted after the prescribed
period, if the appellant or the
applicant satisfied the Court that
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 23:13:35 :::
CA 1593/2012 & Ors
(12)
he had sufficient cause for not
preferring the appeal or making the
application within such period."
7. The last part of Sub Rule (1) of
Rule 22 of Order XLI deals with the
grant of extension of time for filing
of Cross Objection and Section 5 of the
Limitation Act deals with the extension
of time to prefer an Appeal. Section 5
of the Limitation Act incorporates a
condition precedent of the appellant
satisfying the Appellate Court that he
had sufficient cause for not preferring
the Appeal within the prescribed period
of limitation. Sub Rule (1) of Rule 22
of Order XLI does not incorporate the
stringent requirement of establishing a
sufficient cause. Thus, a wide power to
extend the time to file Cross-
Objection has been vested in the
Appellate Court. Though there is no
requirement of establishing sufficient
cause within the meaning of Section 5
of the Limitation Act, in the
application for seeking extension of
time to file Cross-Objection, brief
reasons for delay will have to be set
out. A wider discretion has been
conferred on the Appellate Court under
the Sub Rule (1) of Rule 22 than what
is conferred by Section 5 of the
Limitation Act. The power to extend
time under Sub Rule (1) of Rule 22 of
Order XLI of the Code has to be
liberally exercised in case where a
Cross-Objection is sought to be filed
before the Appeal is heard for final
hearing."
4. In the aforesaid matter, First Appeal
which was filed in the year 2002 was listed on
Board for final hearing, for the first time, in
June 2011. Thereafter cross-objection was filed.
The reason, as was assigned in justification of the
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 23:13:35 :::
CA 1593/2012 & Ors
(13)
delay caused in preferring the application was
that, the respondent had instructed his Advocate to
file the cross-objection, however, he was informed
that the court fees is required to be paid and for
various reasons the court fees could not be
arranged by the said respondent.
5. In the matters which are before this
Court for consideration, similar reasons are
assigned by the respective respondents-claimants in
justification of the delay caused in filing the
cross-objections by them. As observed by this
Court in the cited judgment, sub-rule (1) of Rule
22 of Order 41 of the Code does not incorporate the
stringent requirement of establishing a sufficient
cause. This Court has further observed in the
cited judgment that a wide power to extend time to
file cross-objection has been vested in the
Appellate court. It has also observed that the
power to extend the time under sub-rule (1) of Rule
22 of Order 41 of the Code has to be liberally
exercised in a case where cross-objection is sought
to be filed before the appeal is listed for final
hearing. Having regard to the view taken by this
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 23:13:35 :::
CA 1593/2012 & Ors
(14)
Court in the case cited supra, though I am inclined
to condone the delay, while exercising such
discretion in favour of the respondents-claimants,
it appears to me that since the respondents-
claimants did not file the cross-objection within
the period as stipulated in sub-rule (1) of Rule 22
of Order 41 of the Code, it would not be unjust and
improper if they are disentitled of the interest
for the period of delay in the event their cross-
objections are allowed and consequently the amount
of compensation is enhanced on the said enhanced
amount of compensation.
6. In the result, following order is passed,
-
ORDER
i. The delay occasioned in filing the cross-objections by the respective respondents-claimants in the respective appeals, is condoned.
ii. The cross-objections be registered in accordance with law.
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 23:13:35 :::
CA 1593/2012 & Ors (15) ii. It is clarified that in the event of their success in the cross-objections, resulting in enhancement in the amount of compensation, the respondents-claimants shall not be entitled for the interest of the period of delay on the enhanced amount of compensation. iii. Registry to list the respective appeals along with the cross-objections therein for final disposal in their chronology.
(P.R. BORA) JUDGE bdv ::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 23:13:35 :::