Bombay High Court

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, OSAMANABADversusMANOHAR BABURAO HOGALE

Disposal: Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

Holding

The appeal is dismissed as there is no ground to interfere with the reference court’s award.

Summary

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Osmanabad filed a first appeal (Stamp) against a judgment and award dated 03.10.2013 in L.A.R. No.389/2007, contending that the compensation awarded by the reference court was excessively high, being more than four times the amount awarded by the Senior Civil Judge. The applicant also sought condonation of a 1,321‑day delay in filing the appeal. The court noted that the acquisition proceedings dated back to 2004 and that the State Government had resolved not to challenge the reference court’s award if the compensation was enhanced only up to four times. Finding no merit to intervene, the court dismissed the appeal and, consequently, disposed of the pending civil applications. The application for condonation of delay was allowed, but it did not affect the dismissal of the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the delay of 1,321 days in filing the first appeal can be condoned.
Whether the compensation enhanced by the reference court, being more than four times the original award, warrants interference with the judgment.

Subjects

condonation of delay
compensation enhancement
land acquisition
stamp appeal
civil procedure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:42712
               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…