Bombay High Court

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, OSAMANABADversusMANOHAR BABURAO HOGALE

Disposal: Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

Holding

The court allowed condonation of the delay but dismissed the appeal as the compensation enhancement did not exceed the four‑times limit set by the government resolution.

Summary

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Osmanabad filed a civil application seeking condonation of a 1,321‑day delay in filing a first appeal against a 2013 judgment awarding compensation. The court allowed the condonation application. The appeal itself challenged the compensation award, arguing it was excessive, but the State Government's resolution limited challenges to cases where compensation was enhanced beyond four times the original amount. Since the enhanced compensation was only slightly more than four times the original award, the court found no ground to intervene and dismissed the appeal. Consequently, any pending civil applications related to the appeal were also disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether condonation of a 1,321‑day delay in filing a first appeal can be granted.
Whether the appeal challenging the compensation award should be dismissed in view of the State Government's resolution limiting challenges to enhancements beyond four times the original amount.

Subjects

condonation of delay
first appeal
compensation award
land acquisition
government resolution
civil procedure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:42713
               Tauseef                           1 of 2                 924-CA.2874.2018



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                           924 FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.27458 OF 2017
                                              WITH
                               CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2874 OF 2018
                                       IN FAST/27458/2017

                    THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION,
                                           OSAMANABAD
                                              VERSUS
                                  MANOHAR BABURAO HOGALE
                                                 ...
               Mr. S. S. Dande, Advocate for Applicant.
               Mr. Ramesh V. Naiknavare, Advocate for Respondent.
                                                 ...

                                               AND
                                CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2875 OF 2018
                                        IN FAST/27458/2017

                    THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION,
                                           OSAMANABAD
                                              VERSUS
                                  MANOHAR BABURAO HOGALE
                                                 …
               Mr. S. S. Dande, Advocate for Applicant.
               Mr. Ramesh V. Naiknavare, Advocate for Respondent.
                                                 ...

                                         CORAM :          SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                         DATE     :       11th SEPTEMBER, 2026

               P.C.:-

               CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2874 OF 2018:-

               1.        By this application, the Applicant seeks condonation of delay

               of 1321 days in filing first appeal.

               2.        Considering the averments made in the application, the
Tauseef                             2 of 2                        924-CA.2874.2018



application is allowed.

FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.27458 OF 2017:-

3.        Since the acquisition proceedings pertain to the year 2004,

the appeal is heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocates

for the respective parties.

4.        By this appeal, the Appellant is aggrieved by the judgment

and award dated 03.10.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior

Division at Osmanabad in L.A.R. No.389/2007.

5.        Both the learned Advocates for the respective parties submit

that the compensation enhanced by the learned Reference Court is

slightly more than four times the amount awarded by the SLAO.

6.        In fact the State Government vide Government Resolution

No.Sankirna-2014/Prak.Kra.4/Bham-1/A-4 dated 03.11.2016 with

Corrigendum     dated        23.02.2017      and    13.08.2018       to   the    said

Government Resolution, took a decision not to challenge the reference,

if compensation is enhanced only upto four times.


7.        Therefore, I do not find any reason to intervene with the

impugned order. Hence, the present Appeal is dismissed.


8.        In   view     of    dismissal      of   the   Appeal,     pending      Civil

Applications, if any, do not survive and are disposed of accordingly.


                                      (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…