Bombay High Court
TATYA SEKHA PATIL AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Disposal
- Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute
Holding
The court condoned the delay, allowed the civil applications, and ordered registration of the first appeals, but denied interest or statutory benefits.
Summary
The petitioners, land losers under acquisition references 806/2007 and 182/2007, challenged a 2013 compensation award as inadequate and sought enhancement. Their appeals were delayed by 2,212 days, prompting them to file civil applications for condonation of delay, citing financial hardship and the fact that other claimants had received enhancements. The State opposed, arguing that the petitioners should not benefit from their own delay and that the trial court’s award was proper. The court, relying on the Supreme Court’s liberal approach in Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025), allowed the applications, condoned the delay, and ordered registration of the first appeals, but denied any interest or statutory benefits for the delayed period. Consequently, the petitioners may pursue enhancement but without additional interest.
Issues considered
- Whether the court should condone the 2,212‑day delay in filing appeals for enhancement of compensation.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to interest or statutory benefits for the period of delay.
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation enhancement
- condonation of delay
- interest
- beneficial legislation
- livelihood
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:40220
(1) 921 CA 6490 OF 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
921 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6490 OF 2020
IN FAST/23873/2019
TATYA SEKHA PATIL AND ORS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
...
Mr. R. V. Naiknavare, Advocate for Applicants
Mr. S. N. Kendre, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – State
Mr. M. N. Navandar, Advocate for Respondent No.3
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6491 OF 2020
IN FAST/23871/2019
SHEKHA GHANSHAM PATIL (DIED) THR LRS TATYA AND ORS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
…
Mr. R. V. Naiknavare, Advocate for Applicants
Mr. S. N. Kendre, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – State
Mr. M. N. Navandar, Advocate for Respondent No.3
…
CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
DATE : 02.09.2026
PER COURT :-
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6490 OF 2020 IN FAST/23873/2019
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6491 OF 2020 IN FAST/23871/2019
. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 10.04.2013
passed by the learned 4th Civil Judge Senior Division, Osmanabad in Land
(2) 921 CA 6490 OF 2020
Acquisition Reference Nos.806 of 2007 and 182 of 2007 respectively, the
claimants have filed present appeals for enhancement. There is delay of 2212
days caused in filing the first appeals and hence the Civil Applications are filed
for condonation of delay.
2. Mr. R. V. Naiknaware, learned Advocate for the claimants would
submit that the acquired land was the only source of livelihood of the
claimants and that they were granted a very meagre amount by way of
compensation. He would submit that the financial crisis faced by the
applicants deprived them of availing the remedy of appeals at an earlier stage.
He would submit that there is ample material on record which would justify
the enhancement claimed in the appeals. The applicants ought not to be
deprived of their legitimate claim for enhancement when the other claimants
have received enhancement in the same land acquisition proceedings. He
would submit that the applicants waive interest of every kind so far as the
delayed period is concerned. He would rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and ors.,
(Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.670 of 2020 and connected matters),
decided on 23.04.2025.
(3) 921 CA 6490 OF 2020
3. The request is strongly opposed by Mr. Navandar, learned
Advocate for the acquiring body. He would submit that the applicants cannot
be permitted to take benefit of their own wrong in causing the delay. He
would submit that even otherwise, the learned Trial Court has rightly granted
compensation based on the evidence on record. With this, a prayer is made to
reject the applications.
4. Heard the parties.
5. It is not in dispute that the applicants are land losers whose entire
source of livelihood has been taken away under compulsory acquisition of
their lands. The compensation scheme is beneficial legislation. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held that a liberal approach has to be adopted by the
Courts while considering a claim for enhancement under such beneficial
legislation. Certainly, the observations rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Suresh Kumar (supra) are applicable to the present case.
6. For the reasons stated in the applications, the Civil Applications
are allowed. Delay caused in filing the first appeals stands condoned.
7. The First Appeals be registered.
(4) 921 CA 6490 OF 2020
8. It is made clear that the applicants shall not be entitled to the
interest and statutory benefits for the delayed period.
FIRST APPEALS
9. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 14.10.2026.
Learned AGP waives service of notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2 – State. Mr.
Navandar, learned Advocate waives service of notice for respondent No.3.
10. Call Record and Proceeding.
[AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]
PRW
Checking your session…