Bombay High Court
BALAJI NIVRATTI TOREversusTHE STATE OF MAH, THR. COLLECTOR, LATUR AND ANOTHER.
- Disposal
- Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute
- Bench
- SANJAY A DESHMUKH
Holding
The Court condoned the delay in filing cross‑objections, allowing the applications to proceed.
Summary
The High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, considered several civil applications seeking condonation of delay in filing cross‑objections in land acquisition matters involving poor agriculturist petitioners. The petitioners argued that they were unaware of procedural requirements and could not meet the deadline, while the respondents contended that no sufficient cause was shown. Relying on the precedent set in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Rameshwar @ Ramesh Chandra Sharma (2022 SCC Online SC 1599), the Court held that, in the interest of justice, the delay should be condoned to allow the petitioners’ rights to be adjudicated on merits. Consequently, the applications for condonation were allowed and the delay in filing cross‑objections was formally condoned. Notice was waived for both respondents as per the parties’ agreement.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in filing cross‑objections can be condoned under the principles of natural justice and procedural law.
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- cross objections
- civil procedure
- agriculturist rights
- land acquisition
- interest of justice
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:3208
ca13691.25
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
930 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13691 OF 2025
IN X-OBJST/32211/2025
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1345 OF 2010
IN/WITH FA/2233/2011
Jijabai Tukaram Halgare
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra through Collector Latur and others.
…..
AND
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13694 OF 2025
IN X-OBJST/32232/2025
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1131 OF 2010
IN/WITH FA/1173/2010
Mukind Kerba Bansode
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra through Collector Latur and others.
…
AND
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13692 OF 2025
IN X-OBJST/32255/2025
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1349 OF 2010
IN/WITH FA/1170/2010
Babruwahan Nivruti Tore
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra through Collector Latur and others.
….
AND
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13688 OF 2025
IN X-OBJST/32261/2025
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1333 OF 2010
IN/WITH FA/1169/2010
Pandurang Baburao Shinde
(Died through L.Rs.) and another
VERSUS
ca13691.25
-2-
State of Maharashtra through Collector Latur and others.
…..
AND
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13690 OF 2025
IN X-OBJST/32235/2025
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1347 OF 2010
IN/WITH FA/1171/2010
Balaji Nivratti Tore
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra through Collector Latur and others.
…..
AND
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13689 OF 2025
IN X-OBJST/32267/2025
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1339 OF 2010
IN/WITH FA/1168/2010
Dattu Vitthalrao Shinde and another
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra through Collector Latur and others.
…..
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Sandeep C. Swami
AGP for Respondent No.1: Mr. V.V. Jahagirdar
Advocate for Respondent No.2: Mr. A.D. Soman
…..
CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
DATED : 23rd JANUARY, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. These are the civil applications filed for condonation of
delay caused in filing the cross objections. Perused the applications.
Heard learned advocates for both sides. Learned advocate for the
applicants submitted that the applicants are poor agriculturists whose
lands are acquired. They are not conversant with the provisions of
law and could not file the cross objections within time. Therefore, in
ca13691.25
-3-
the interest of justice, the applications deserve to be allowed.
2. Learned advocate for the respondents strongly opposed the
applications by submitting that there is no sufficient cause shown to
condone the delay. He therefore, prayed to reject the applications.
3. On perusal of applications and the law laid down 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, it would be proper to
condone the delay in the interest of justice as the claimants are poor
agriculturists and it would be proper to decide their rights finally on
merits. The applications are thus allowed. The delay caused in filing
the cross objections is condoned.
4. In cross objections, issue notice to the respondents.
Learned A.G.P. waives notice for respondent No.1 and learned
advocate Mr. Soman, waives notice for respondent No.2.
(SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.)
rlj/
Checking your session…