Bombay High Court

ASHOK SAMBHU GHULE.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE DIST COLLECTOR BEED AND ANOTHER.

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

Holding

The High Court held that the 97‑day delay in filing the appeal under Section 74(1) of the 2013 Act may be condoned, exercising its power under Section 5 of the Act.

Summary

The applicants, Ananda Dadaba Pawar and others, filed applications seeking condonation of a 97‑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 office note rejected the appeals as untimely, stating no provision for condonation beyond 120 days. The applicants relied 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), which held that Section 74 of the 2013 Act can draw on the powers of the 1963 Act and that the filing period is singular, allowing the court to consider condonation. The High Court, after applying the reasoning of the Supreme Court and invoking its power under Section 5 of the 2013 Act, allowed the applications and condoned the delay. The appeals were ordered to be registered subject to removal of objections, with further hearing scheduled for 30 July 2026.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of 97 days in filing an appeal under Section 74(1) of the 2013 Act can be condoned despite the statutory 120‑day limit.
Whether the High Court can exercise power under Section 5 of the 2013 Act to condone such delay.
Interpretation of the relationship between Section 74(1) and its proviso and the applicability of provisions of the 1963 Land Acquisition Act.

Legislation cited

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

Subjects

delay condonation
land acquisition
Section 74
Section 5
appeal filing period
statutory limitation
Supreme Court precedent

Judgment

                                                             964 CA 11681 25.odt

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                 964 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11681 OF 2025
                            IN FAST/29212/2025
                                   WITH
                   CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11680 OF 2025
                             IN FAST/29219/2025
                                   WITH
                   CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11682 OF 2025
                             IN FAST/29217/2025
                                   WITH
                   CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11683 OF 2025
                             IN FAST/29215/2025
                                   WITH
                   CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11679 OF 2025
                            IN FAST/29155/2025

              ANANDA DADABA PAWAR AND OTHERS
                              VERSUS
 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE DIST COLLECTOR BEED
                           AND ANOTHER.
                                  ...
              Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Shinde C. K.
             AGP for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. C. V. Bhadane
           Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. S. R. Shirsat
                                  ...
                  CORAM                : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

                       DATE                  : 02.07.2026


PER COURT :

         By these applications, the applicants seek to condone delay of 97

days caused in filing appeal under Section 74(1) of t he 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 the present appeals are not maintainable as those are filed beyond

120 days and there is no provision to condone the delay.


                                                                               1/3
                                                              964 CA 11681 25.odt
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 the aforesaid exposition of law, this Court finds that the

applications for delay condonation deserve consideration. Hence, for the reasons

stated in the applications. Case is made out to exercise power under Section 5 of

the Act of 2013.


4.    In the result, the applications are allowed. Delay of 97 days caused in

filing appeals is condoned. Civil Applications are disposed of.


5.    Appeals be registered subject to removal of the office objections. After

registration of the appeals list the appeals for further consideration on

30.07.2026.


                                                                               2/3
                                                           964 CA 11681 25.odt
6.      Call for record and proceedings.


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

of admission.



                                       ( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)




mkd/-




                                                                            3/3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…