Bombay High Court
RAJENDRA VITHHAL PATILversusTHE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, M.I.W., JALGAON AND ANR
- Disposal
- Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute
- Bench
- SANJAY A DESHMUKH
Holding
The Court allowed the stay of execution and condonation applications, dismissed the time‑deposit application as infructuous, and ordered the X‑objection to be registered.
Summary
The Court dealt with several civil applications arising from a land acquisition dispute, including a request for a 12‑week period to deposit 50% of the award, a stay of execution of the judgment, and a petition for condonation of a delay of 866 days in filing an X‑objection. The applicant argued that the entire award amount had already been deposited with the Court, rendering the time‑deposit application moot. The stay application was allowed on the basis that the amount was indeed deposited. The condonation application was granted after the Court applied the Supreme Court’s reasoning in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Rameshwar, holding that the delay was not deliberate. Consequently, the time‑deposit application was dismissed as infructuous, the stay was granted, and the X‑objection was registered. The pending appeals were adjourned for further hearing on 5 May 2026.
Issues considered
- Whether the application for a 12‑week period to deposit 50% of the award is necessary when the amount is already deposited
- Whether a stay of execution of the impugned judgment should be granted
- Whether the delay of 866 days in filing the X‑objection warrants condonation
Subjects
- land acquisition
- condonation of delay
- stay of execution
- civil application
- X‑objection
- court procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
928 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2536 OF 2015
VITTHAL DAMODAR PATIL
VERSUS
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, M I W JALGAON AND
ANOTHER
...
Mr. A. B. Kale, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. S. G. Joshi, AGP for the Respondent/State
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1242 OF 2012
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRITATION JALGAON
VERSUS
RAJENDRA VITTHAL PATIL AND ANR
…
Mr. S. S. Chillarge, Advocate for the appellant
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4831 OF 2014
IN FA/1242/2012
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION DIVI. JALGAON
VERSUS
REJENDRA VITTHAL PATIL AND ANOTHER
…
Mr. S. S. Chillarge, Advocate for the Applicant
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12420 OF 2016
IN X-OBJST/36791/2015
RAJENDRA VITHHAL PATIL
VERSUS
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, M.I.W., JALGAON AND ANR
…
928 FA 2536.2015.odt 1 of 4
Mr. A. B. Kale, Advocate for Applicant
Mr. S. G. Joshi, AGP for the Respondent/State
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8568 OF 2011
IN FA/1242/2012
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRITATION JALGAON
VERSUS
RAJENDRA VITTHAL PATIL AND ANR
…
Mr. S. S. Chillarge, Advocate for the Applicant
CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
DATED : 30th APRIL, 2026
P. C. :-
ORDER BELOW CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4831 OF 2014
IN FA NO. 1242/2012
1. This is an application seeking grant of 12 weeks’ time to deposit
50% of the amount under the impugned judgment and award. The
application was filed on 06/02/2014, and more than 14 years have elapsed. It
is submitted that the entire amount has already been deposited in this Court.
2. In view of the above, the application has become infructuous and
is disposed of accordingly.
ORDER BELOW CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8568 OF 2011
3. This is an application seeking stay to the execution of the
928 FA 2536.2015.odt 2 of 4
impugned judgment and award. It is submitted that the entire amount has
been deposited in this Court. In view thereof, the application deserves to be
allowed. Hence, the application is allowed and disposed of.
ORDER BELOW CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12420 OF 2016
4. This is an application for condonation of delay of 866 days in for
filing X-Objection.
5. Perused the application. Heard learned Advocates for both sides.
Considering reasons stated in the application and law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of New Okhla Industrial Development
Authority vs. Rameshwar @ Ramesh Chandra Sharma (Dead) Through Legal
heir and another; 2022 SCC Online SC 1599 . The application deserves to be
allowed in the interest of justice as the delay is not deliberate caused. Hence,
application is allowed. Delay is condoned.
6. X-Objection be registered. Mr. Chillarge, learned Advocate
waives service of notice for Respondent No.1.
ORDER BELOW FIRST APPEAL NOS. 1242 OF 2012 AND 2536 OF 2015
7. Heard learned Advocate Mr. A. B. Kale for the appellant at length.
Mr. Chillarge, learned Advocate for the Acquiring Body, seeks time. The
928 FA 2536.2015.odt 3 of 4
appeals have been remanded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court; therefore, it is
necessary that these appeals be heard and decided as expeditiously as
possible.
8. Stand over to 5th May, 2026 at 2.30 p.m. first on board.
(SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.)
ssp
928 FA 2536.2015.odt 4 of 4
Checking your session…