Bombay High Court

SANJAY TRIMBAK NIKAMversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH COLLECTOR, BEED AND ANOTHER

Disposal: Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute
Bench: S G CHAPALGAONKAR

Holding

The High Court held that the delay of 129 days in filing the appeal could be condoned, and the applications for condonation were allowed.

Summary

The applicants sought condonation of a 129‑day delay in filing appeals under Section 74(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The trial court noted that the appeals were beyond the 120‑day limit and that the statute appeared to provide no provision for condonation. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Deputy Commissioner & Special Land Acquisition Officer v. M/s. S.V. Global Mill Ltd (AIR 2026 SC 1129), the High Court held that Section 74(1) can draw its remedial power from the 1963 Land Acquisition Act and that the period for filing an appeal is a single unified period, allowing the court to consider condonation. Consequently, the High Court exercised its power under Section 5 of the 2013 Act to condone the delay. The applications were allowed and the civil applications were disposed, with the appeals to be registered subject to removal of objections.

Issues considered

What is the effect of filing an appeal under Section 74(1) of the 2013 Act beyond the prescribed 120‑day period?
Whether the High Court can condone such delay under the powers conferred by Section 5 of the 2013 Act, in view of the interplay with the 1963 Land Acquisition Act.
Whether the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Deputy Commissioner & Special Land Acquisition Officer v. S.V. Global Mill Ltd permits condonation of delay.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1963 — s. 24, 4, 5
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — s. 5, 74(1)

Subjects

Land acquisition
Section 74
Delay condonation
Appellate jurisdiction
Right to Fair Compensation Act 2013
Supreme Court precedent
Procedural law

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:34246
968-ca-11635-2025.odt
(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11635 OF 2025
IN FAST/26814/2025
Hausabai Babasaheb Birangal (died) Ajinath Babasaheb Birangal And
Other
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Collector, Beed And Another
...
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Shinde Chandrakant K.
AGP for Respondent/State : Ms. R.R. Tandale
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. P.A. Pisal
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11644 OF 2025 IN FAST/27076/2025 WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11646 OF 2025 IN FAST/27080/2025 WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11642 OF 2025 IN FAST/27072/2025 WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11639 OF 2025 IN FAST/27066/2025 WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11640 OF 2025 IN FAST/27068/2025 WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11636 OF 2025 IN FAST/27082/2025 WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11641 OF 2025 IN FAST/27070/2025 WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11637 OF 2025 IN FAST/27062/2025 WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11638 OF 2025 IN FAST/27064/2025 WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11645 OF 2025 IN FAST/27078/2025 WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11643 OF 2025 IN FAST/27074/2025
...
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
DATED : AUGUST 06, 2026
PER COURT :-

1. By these applications, applicants seek to condone delay of

129 days caused in filing appeal under Section 74(1) of the Right to

Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as

'Act of 2013'). The office note indicate that present appeals are not

maintainable as those are filed beyond 120 days and there is no

provision to condone delay.
968-ca-11635-2025.odt
(2)

2. Learned advocate Mr. Shinde appearing for the applicants

relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Deputy

Commissioner & Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. M/s. S. V Global

Mill Limited; reported in AIR 2026 Supreme Court 1129 , wherein the

Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:

"77. As Section 74 of the 2013 Act does not exclude the
application of Sections 4 to 24 of the 1963 Act, a limited
interpretation of Section 5 of the 1963 Act alone cannot be
given. What applies to exclusion shall apply to extension as
well. In our considered view, the High Court, while exercising
the power Under Section 74 of the 2013 Act, is certainly
entitled to draw its power from the sources available under the
1963 Act. We cannot introduce words that are not available in
Section 74 through an imaginary interpretation in holding the
existence of an express exclusion. It is a conscious decision
made by the Legislature, and its knowledge must be inferred
and implied. Thus, we are inclined to hold that there is not
much difference between the main provision contained in
Section 74(1) and its proviso. There is only one period
mentioned for filing the appeal, meaning thereby that the other
one mentioned under the proviso gets subsumed within the
period provided Under Section 74(1)."

3. Having considered aforesaid exposition of law, this Court

finds that applications for delay condonation deserve consideration.

Hence, for reasons stated in applications, case is made out to exercise

power under Section 5 of Act of 2013.

4. In result, applications are allowed. Delay of 129 days

caused in filing appeals is condoned. Civil Applications are disposed

of.

5. Appeals be registered subject to removal of office

objections. After registration of appeals, list appeals for further

consideration on 03.09.2026.
968-ca-11635-2025.odt
(3)

6. Call for record and proceedings.

7. Parties to take note that appeals may be heard finally at

the stage of admission.

(S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)

Mujaheed//

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…