Bombay High Court
FULCHAND MARUTI DHOLEversusTHE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, OSMANABAD THR GMIDC, AURANGABAD AND ANR
- Disposal
- Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute
Holding
The Court held that the 244‑day delay in filing the cross‑objection was not deliberate or due to negligence and could be condoned.
Summary
The applicant, a landowner whose land was compulsorily acquired, sought enhancement of compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, alleging the reference court had awarded inadequate compensation. In the first appeal filed by the acquiring body, the applicant needed to file a cross‑objection but delayed 244 days due to lack of legal knowledge and financial constraints. The applicant argued the delay was neither deliberate nor negligent and prayed for condonation. The acquiring body opposed the condonation. The court examined the reasons for delay, found them satisfactory, and allowed the application, condoning the delay and ordering registration of the cross‑objection.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 244 days in filing a cross‑objection can be condoned under the principles of natural justice and procedural law.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act — s. 18
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation enhancement
- delay condonation
- cross‑objection
- civil procedure
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:41897
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5859 OF 2025
IN X-OBJST/15701/2024
Fulchand Maruti Dhole
Versus
The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division,
Osmanabad Thr GMIDC, Aurangabad And Anr
…..
Shri. Vivekanand V. Ingale, Advocate for Applicant
Shri. S. P. Sonpawale, AGP for Respondent – State.
Shri. Arvind N. Gaddime, Advocate for Respondent No.1
…..
CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
Dated : SEPTEMBER 07, 2026
PER COURT :-
. This Application is filed seeking condonation of 244 days’ delay in
filing the Cross-objection.
2. The learned Advocate for the Applicant submits that the Applicant
is the land owner, whose land is acquired under the compulsory land
acquisition. It is further submitted that in the proceedings for
enhancement under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act the learned
Reference Court erred in granting inadequate enhancement in the
compensation. It is further submitted that even though the Acquiring
Body has filed the First Appeal and it has become necessary for the
Applicant - Claimant to file the Cross-objection, for want of legal
knowledge and due to the financial crisis, the Applicant could not
approach his learned Advocate earlier and hence the delay is caused. It
2
is submitted that the delay is neither deliberate nor attributable to
lethargy or negligence on the part of the Applicant. Hence he prays that
the Application may be allowed.
3. The learned Advocate for the Acquiring Body formally opposes the
Application.
4. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions and for the reasons
stated in the Application, the Application deserves to be allowed. Hence
the following order.
ORDER
(i) The Civil Application is allowed.
(ii) Delay of 244 days caused in filing the Cross-objection
stands condoned.
(iii) The Cross-objection be registered.
( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )
GGP
Checking your session…