Bombay High Court

RANGNATH NIVRUTTI BARKULEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

Disposal: Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

Holding

The Court allowed the condonation of the 563‑day delay in filing the appeal.

Summary

Rangnath Nivrutti Barkule, a landowner from a remote village, sought enhancement of compensation awarded by a Reference Court but filed his appeal 563 days late. He applied to the High Court for condonation of this delay, citing poverty, lack of awareness of procedural requirements, and difficulty in arranging court fees. The acquiring authority did not oppose the condonation provided the applicant undertook not to claim interest for the delayed period. The Court examined the applicant's economic hardship, remote residence, and the fact that the acquired land was his sole source of income. Finding the delay to be bona fide and not intentional, the Court held that condoning the delay served the interests of justice. Accordingly, the Court allowed the application, condoned the 563‑day delay, ordered the applicant to file an undertaking not to claim interest, and directed registration of the first appeal.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of 563 days in preferring an appeal challenging a compensation award can be condoned on the grounds of poverty and lack of knowledge of procedural requirements.

Subjects

condonation of delay
appeal
compensation award
land acquisition
poverty
interest waiver
civil procedure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:4533


                                                  1                             19.odt


                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2577 OF 2019
                                     IN FAST/36227/2018
                              RANGNATH NIVRUTTI BARKULE
                                             VERSUS
                          THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
                                                 ...
                           Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Shirsat Suhas R.
                         AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. V.S. Badakh
                       Advocate for Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Vaishali S. Swami
                                       h/f. Mr. M.C. Swami
                                                 ...

                                                   CORAM : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.
                                                   DATE : 02ND FEBRUARY, 2026

              PER COURT :

              1.           This is an application for condonation of delay in preferring

              an appeal challenging the judgment and award passed by the Reference

              Court.

              2.           The claimants sought enhancement of the compensation

              granted but while filing the appeal, delay of 563 days has occurred.

              3.           Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the

              applicant is a poor person and is residing in remote area of village

              Rohina, Taluka Partur, District Jalna, and therefore, he was not aware

              about the procedural niceties. He submitted that it took time for arranging

              the Court fees as well as seeking advices from the lawyer and filing of
                                     2                                  19.odt


the appeal. He submits that he will not claim interest for the delayed

period and is ready to give undertaking to that effect.

4.           Learned counsel for the acquiring body has stated that he

has no objection if the application is allowed but he submits that

undertaking be directed to be given by the applicant stating that they will

not claim the interest for the delayed period.

6.           Learned APP has requested to pass appropriate order.

7.           I have gone through the record of the case and more

particularly an application. In the application, it has been stated that the

applicant is a poor person and was not having the knowledge of the

award passed and it is due to economic condition that the Court fees

could not be arranged. In an application, it is also stated that the delay is

bonafide and not intentional. Record shows that the applicant resides in a

remote area and his economic resources were limited. The record further

shows that the acquired land was only source of income for him.

8.           Considering the fact that by the acquisition of land the

applicant is deprived of his property, I find that condoning the delay

would be in the interest of justice, and therefore, order is passed :

                                  ORDER

      i.     Application for condonation of delay is allowed.

      ii.    The delay of 563 days is condoned.
                                    3                            19.odt


      iii.   The applicant shall not claim the interest for the

      delayed period and will file undertaking to that effect within

      a period of four weeks from today.

      iv.    First Appeal be registered.




                                              ( RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. )



SPC

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…