Bombay High Court

BALU JAGANNATH CHAUNDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE COLLECTOR, JALNA AND ORS

Disposal: Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

Holding

The court held that the 457‑day delay is condonable, allowing the application but denying interest and statutory benefits for the delayed period.

Summary

The applicant, Balu Jagannath Chaunde, a landowner whose property was acquired under compulsory land acquisition, filed a civil application seeking condonation of a 457‑day delay in filing his first appeal for enhanced compensation. The applicant argued that the right to seek higher compensation is statutory and should not be defeated by procedural delay, and offered to waive interest for the delayed period. Respondent No.3, the acquiring body, did not appear, leaving the application unopposed. The court examined the reasons provided, found them satisfactory, and allowed the condonation of delay while refusing any interest or statutory benefits for the period of delay. Consequently, the appeal was registered.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of 457 days in filing a first appeal for compensation enhancement can be condoned.
Whether the statutory right to seek enhanced compensation is defeated by procedural delay.
Whether interest or statutory benefits are payable for the period of delay.

Subjects

condonation of delay
land acquisition
compensation enhancement
interest waiver
first appeal

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:42041
                                               1
                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

                              48 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10566 OF 2023
                                                IN
                                FIRST APPEAL (ST.) No.20146 of 2023

                                    BALU JAGANNATH CHAUNDE
                                                VERSUS
                                    THE STATE OF MAHARASHRA
                              THR THE COLLECTOR, JALNA AND ORS
                                                  …..
                            Shri. S. M. Kakde, Advocate for the Applicant
                                 Shri. R. K. Ingole, AGP for the State.
                                                  ……

                                              CORAM :         AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                                              Dated       :   SEPTEMBER 07, 2026

               PER COURT :-

               .     On 17.08.2026 this Court observed that the Respondents are

               served, however none appeared for Respondent No.3. It was further

               observed that on the next date, if none appears for Respondent No.3,

               this Court shall pass appropriate order.


               2.    Today, when the matter is called out, none appears on behalf of

               Respondent No.3.


               3.    The Civil Application is filed for condonation 457 days delay

               caused in filing the First Appeal. Shri. Kakade, the learned Advocate for

               the Applicant has taken me through the recitals of the paragraph nos.3

               to 10 of the Civil Application, wherein the reasons for condonation of

               delay are mentioned. He submits that the Applicant is the landowner
                                   2
whose land is acquired under compulsory land acquisition. He submits

that seeking enhancement in the compensation is the statutory right of

the Claimant / Applicant and that such statutory right must not be

defeated on the technical ground of delay. Moreover, the delay is not

inordinate. The Applicant is ready to waive the interest for the period of

delay. He further submits that the present application is covered by the

parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case

of Suresh Kumar vs. State of Haryana and Ors (Civil Appeal arising out

of SLP (C) No.670/2020) and connected matters decided on

23.04.2025. Hence, it is prayed that the Application may be allowed.



4.         As recorded earlier, none appears on behalf of contesting

Respondent No.3 – Acquiring Body and hence the application has gone

unopposed.


5.         I have considered recitals of the Application.   I find that, the

Applicant has given satisfactory reasons in the Application to condone

the delay.       In view of this, the Application deserves to be allowed.

Hence the following order:

                                       ORDER

     (i)      The Application stands allowed.

     (ii)     The delay caused of 457 days in filing the First Appeal stands
              condoned.
                                    3


      (iii)   The Applicant shall not be entitled to interest and statutory
              benefits for the delayed period.


      (iv)    The Appeal be registered.




                                          ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )

GGP

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…