Bombay High Court
Shobha Nanasaheb Game Thr Her Power Of ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 27 February, 2019
Author: P.R. Bora
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 2003.2018.CA.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CIVIL APPLICATIO NO.1219 OF 2018
IN FAST/32654/2017
WITH
CA/1211/2018 IN FAST/32463/2017 WITH
CA/1213/2018 IN FAST/32488/2017 WITH
CA/1214/2018 IN FAST/32513/2017 WITH
CA/1216/2018 IN FAST/32520/2017 WITH
CA/1217/2018 IN FAST/32523/2017 WITH
CA/1220/2018 IN FAST 32527/2017 WITH
CA/1222/2018 IN FAST/32469/2017 WITH
CA/1223/2018 IN FAST/32490/2017 WITH
CA/1232/2018 IN FAST/32180/2017 WITH
CA/1233/2018 IN FAST/32186/2017 WITH
CA/1234/2018 IN FAST/32184/2017 WITH
CA/1236/2018 IN FAST/32188/2017 WITH
CA/1237/2018 IN FAST/32182/2017 WITH
CA/1996/2018 IN FAST/32139/2017 WITH
CA/1998/2018 IN FAST/32166/2017 WITH
CA/1999/2018 IN FAST/32160/2017 WITH
CA/2001/2018 IN FAST/32162/2017 WITH
CA/2002/2018 IN FAST/32151/2017 WITH
CA/2003/2018 IN FAST/32157/2017 WITH
CA/2004/2018 IN FAST/32148/2017 WITH
CA/2006/2018 IN FAST/32164/2017 WITH
CA/2655/2018 IN FAST/40878/2017 WITH
CA/2656/2018 IN FAST/40874/2017 WITH
CA/3148/2018 IN FAST/32196/2017 WITH
CA/3149/2018 IN FAST/32200/2017 WITH
CA/3150/2018 IN FAST/32202/2017 WITH
CA/3151/2018 IN FAST/32198/2017 WITH
CA/6008/2018 IN FAST/41248/2017 WITH
CA/6605/2018 IN FAST/41250/2017 WITH
CA/6606/2018 IN FAST/41252/2017 WITH
CA/7329/2018 IN FAST/41260/2017 WITH
CA/7330/2018 IN FAST/41266/2017 WITH
CA/7331/2018 IN FAST/41264/2017 WITH
ggp
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 06:17:45 :::
2 2003.2018.CA.doc
CA/7332/2018 IN FAST/41262/2017 WITH
CA/7333/2018 IN FAST/41268/2017 WITH
CA/7334/2018 IN FAST/41270/2017 WITH
CA/7336/2018 IN FAST/41272/2017 WITH
CA/8065/2018 IN FAST/2587/2018 WITH
CA/8066/2018 IN FAST/2589/2018 WITH
CA/8067/2018 IN FAST/2591/2018
...
Shri Mukul S. Kulkarni, Advocate for Applicants ;
Shri A.M. Phule, Shri P.M. Kulkarni, Shri S.J. Salgare
respective AGP's for Respondents No.1 & 2 in respective matters ;
Advocate for Respondent No.3 - Shri S.T. Shelke
...
CORAM : P.R. BORA, J.
Dated: February 27, 2019
PER COURT :
1. Not on Board. Taken on Board at the request of the
learned Counsel for the applicants.
2. Mr. S.T. Shelke, learned Counsel for the acquiring
body, tendered across the Bar affidavit in reply of respondent
no.3, the same is taken on record.
3. In all these matters delay for the period ranging
between 358 to 1150 days has occurred in filing the present
appeals by the original claimants. Respondent no.3 has filed
affidavit-in-reply in one of the matter (Civil Application No.1232
of 2018 in First Appeal (St) No.32180 of 2017) for opposing
ggp
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 06:17:45 :::
3 2003.2018.CA.doc
applications for condonation of delay. Mr. S.T. Shelke, learned
Counsel appearing for respondent no.3, submits that the
affidavit filed in the said matter be treated as affidavit in all
these matters.
4. Shri Mukul Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for
the applicants submitted that though the applicants were
dissatisfied with the amount of compensation enhanced by the
Reference Court, could not approach this Court within the
stipulated period of limitation for the reason that they were
lacking the necessary funds for purchasing Court fee stamps and
take the further necessary steps for filing these appeals by
approaching Advocate of the High Court. Learned Counsel
submitted that though execution proceedings were filed by the
applicants, with great difficulty they could recover the amount
from the acquiring body. The learned Counsel further submitted
that only after the amount was deposited in the respective
accounts of the applicants that the appellants started
preparations for filing the present appeals. Learned Counsel
further submitted that drought situation for consecutive 2/3
ggp
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 06:17:45 :::
4 2003.2018.CA.doc
years was the another great hurdle for the applicants. The
learned Counsel submitted that substantial grounds are raised
by the applicants in exception to the award passed by the
Reference Court and, as such, the applicants need to be given an
opportunity to agitate their appeals on merits. Learned Counsel,
therefore, prayed for condonation of delay.
5. Shri Shelke, learned Counsel for respondent no.3,
opposed for condonation of delay. Learned Counsel submitted
that the financial crunch or poverty cannot be a ground for
condonation of delay. The learned Counsel further submitted
that the delay of huge period has occurred in filing the appeals
for which there is no sufficient explanation submitted by the
appellants. Learned Counsel placed reliance on the following
judgments in support of his contentions:
(i) 1999 (1) ALL MR 63
(Bipin H.Doshi Vs. Jawaharlal Prajapati & ors)
(ii) AIR 1998 SC 2276
(P.K.Ramchandran v. State of Kerala and another)
(iii) (2013) 14 SCC 81)
(Basawaraj and another Vs. Special Land Acquisition
Officer)
ggp
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 06:17:45 :::
5 2003.2018.CA.doc
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made on
behalf of the applicants as well as the respondents. There
cannot be a dispute about the law laid down in the judgments
relied upon by Shri Shelke, learned Counsel for respondent no.3.
The discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised
judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case. As has
been held by the Honourable Apex Court in the case of
Basawaraj and another vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer
(cited supra) sufficient cause cannot be liberally interpreted if
negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the
parties. From the reasons which are assigned by the applicants,
it is evident that neither they were negligent in prosecuting their
right of appeal nor it can be said that they were inactive.
According to me, lack of financial resources can certainly be a
cause for occurrence of delay in approaching the Court. The
persons like applicants, whose lands have been acquired which
were, according to them, was the only source of their income,
may be prevented from approaching the Court within the
stipulated period of limitation for want of sufficient funds with
ggp
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 06:17:45 :::
6 2003.2018.CA.doc
them. It does not appear to me that any mala fides can be
attributed on the part of the applicants for approaching late to
this Court in filing the appeals. It appears to me that the
applicants have made out sufficient cause for condoning the
delay. The applicants - appellants need to be given an
opportunity to agitate their matters on merits. Hence, the
following order:
ORDER
(i) Delay caused in filing the Appeals is condoned.
(ii) It is, however, clarified that if the applicants - appellants succeed in the appeals and consequently, the amount of compensation is enhanced by this Court, the applicants shall not be entitled for the interest of the period of delay on the enhanced amount of compensation.
(iii) The Appeals be registered in accordance with law.
(iv) Civil Applications for condonation of delay stand disposed of.
(v) After registration of the appeals, issue notice to the respondents in all the appeals. Learned Counsel Shri Shelke waives notice for respondent no.3 in all these appeals.
ggp ::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 06:17:45 ::: 7 2003.2018.CA.doc Respective learned A.G.P.'s waive notice for respondent nos.1 and 2 in respective matters. Service complete.
(vi) Call Record & Proceedings.
(vii) Place the matters for admission after six weeks.
( P.R. BORA, J. )
ggp
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 06:17:45 :::