Bombay High Court
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER IRRIGATION PROJECT MAJBUTIKARANN DIVISION OSMANABADversusDHENU LALU RATHOD
- Disposal
- Rejected at Admission stage
- Bench
- RAJNISH R VYAS
Holding
The Court held that without material showing of deliberate default or sufficient cause, the statutory limitation cannot be relaxed and the 2,789‑day delay cannot be condoned.
Summary
The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Project Majbutikaran Division, Osmanabad sought condonation of a 2,789‑day delay in filing its first appeal against a 2014 land‑acquisition award. The applicant argued that as a state‑owned corporation it required government sanction of funds for court fees, which caused the delay, and that similar condonation orders had been granted in other cases. The Court examined the applicant’s explanations, noting the absence of any specific dates or evidence of deliberate obstruction by officials. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that mere bureaucratic delay or lack of funds does not constitute sufficient cause to override the Limitation Act. Consequently, the application for condonation was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 2,789 days in filing an appeal can be condoned under the Limitation Act.
- Whether the need to obtain government sanction for funds constitutes a sufficient cause for condonation.
- Whether prior orders granting condonation in similar cases are binding on the present application.
- Whether the merits of the compensation award are relevant to the condonation of delay.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- Limitation Act
- land acquisition
- government sanction
- appeal filing
- procedural law
- court fees
- compensation award
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:4842
1 26.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6970 OF 2022
IN FAST/12495/2022
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER IRRIGATION PROJECT
MAJBUTIKARANN DIVISION OSMANABAD
VERSUS
DHENU LALU RATHOD
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Mukul Kulkarni
AGP for Respondent/s – State : Mr. V.K. Kotecha
...
CORAM : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.
DATE : 02ND FEBRUARY, 2026
PER COURT :
1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 2789 days
in filing an appeal by acquiring body the challenging the judgment and
award passed by the reference Court.
2. In order to appreciate the controversy in its proper
perspective, the pleadings made in application are reproduced herein
below :
“2. The applicant says and submits that, the
judgment and award is dated 7-4-2014. The applicant
is working under the Krishna Khore Development
Corporation Pune. The applicant applied for certified
copy on 9-4-2014. The application was completed on
15-5-2014 and the certified copy was delivered on 26-
5-2014.
3. The applicant says and submits that, the
applicant is a Corporation established by the State
Government. Therefore, the applicant is required to
get sanction of funds from the Government. Unless
there is sanctioned amount from the Government, the
applicant is unable to file first appeal. The applicant
2 26.odt
demanded sanction of funds for payment of court fees
and for incidental expenses to the Government for
filing first appeals. After getting sanction from the
Government, the applicant sent the cheque to the
Advocate at Aurangabad. As there are connected first
appeals, Civil Applications for delay condonation and
Civil Applications for stay are also prepared. Hence
some time was required for preparation of the matter.
Therefore, some delay is caused. The same is not
intentional one. Hence the same is required to be
condoned.
4. The applicant says and submits that, the matter
is in respect of compensation amount for acquisition of
land. The Land Acquisition Officer has awarded
proper, just and adequate compensation to the
claimants as per the prevailing market price. The
learned Reference Court without there being any
proper evidence on record awarded enhanced
compensation to the claimants along with 9% and
15% interest from the date of possession which is
highly excessive and against the provisions of law. The
applicant has every hope for succeed in first appeal.
Therefore, it is just, proper and in the interest of justice
to condone the delay caused in filing first appeal and
the first appeal may kindly be heard on its merits.
5. The applicant further says and submits that,
arising out of the same acquisition proceedings,
several other land acquisition references were decided
by the learned Reference Court and against the said
judgments and awards the acquiring body has filed
first appeals in this Hon’ble High Court and the same
are pending consideration before this Hon’ble High
Court. In the light of this also, it is just and proper to
condone the delay caused in filing the present first
appeal.”
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that challenging
the award from the same acquisition, first appeals are filed before this
Court in which delay is condoned. He has relied upon order dated
3 26.odt
29.09.2021, passed in Civil Application No. 10303/2021 in First Appeal
Stamp No. 22480/2021, so also order dated 10.10.2023, passed in Civil
Application No. 10704/2023 in First Appeal No. 23552/2022.
4. I have gone through the said orders. While deciding the
issue, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court discussed in the
several cases which are mentioned in this order is not taken into
consideration. Further nothing has been brought on record to show that
what were the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of
delay. In that view of the matter, I do not think that the argument will
help the applicant.
5. Perusal of the application would reveal that the judgment
and award was passed by the reference Court on 07.04.2014 and the
certified copy was applied on 09.04.2014, which was delivered on
26.05.2014. After 2024 more particularly on 26.05.2024, no date is
shown to test what was the date from which the limitation started. No
dates are shown in order to decide the delay application. The application
for a certified copy was made on 09.04.2014, which confirms that the
date of knowledge was 09.04.2014. The application for condonation of
delay was filed on 10.04.2022. For explaining the delay from the month
of April, 2014, till the month of April, 2022, it is stated that the applicant
is a corporation established by the State Government and, therefore,
required to get sanction of funds from government.
6. It was stated that the demand for funds for payment of
Court fees and incidental expenses to the government was made and after
getting the sanction from the government the cheque was issued. It is
4 26.odt
necessary to note that absolutely no dates are given in application to
substantiate the contention. Just because the applicant/appellant is
acquiring body, no special treatment can be given to it. The limitation Act
is secular in nature. The length of delay may not be relevant if sufficient
cause is shown.
7. Perusal of averments made in the application would reveal
that there are no allegations against a particular officer stating that he has
acted deliberately or in a mala fide manner to help the claimant, and
therefore, the delay is occasioned. No doubt in appropriate cases, the
liberal approach can be taken, but the fact remains that there is no
material to adopt the said course.
8. Coming to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Ors. Vs. Katiji
and Ors. (in Civil Appeal No.460 of 1987 dated 19th February 1987).
The ratio therein cannot be disputed at all. The Court cannot be hyper-
technical and ask the party to explain every day's delay, or every hour's or
every second's delay. What is required is a common-sense, pragmatic
approach.
9. A pragmatic manner would mean that whether the reasons
made would appeal to the man of ordinary and focus on real-world
consequences. As already discussed in view of the absence of a specific
reason or date of knowledge, the liberal approach cannot be adopted.
10. So far as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of G. Ramegowda and Ors. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
5 26.odt
Bangalore (Civil Appeals Nos. 856, 857 and 899 (N) of 1974 dated 10th
March 1988), suffice it to say that, in that case, the Hon'ble Apex Court
has taken into consideration that if there is some deliberate omission on
the part of the officers or some intentional default, then the benefit can be
given to the government authorities and in that background, the delay
was condoned. It was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph
No.8, “having regard to the entirety of the circumstances, the High Court
thought that the State should not be penalized for the lapses of some of its
officers and that in the particular circumstances there were sufficient
grounds justifying the condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It was a
matter for the discretion of the High Court. We are unable to say that the
discretion was improperly exercised.”
11. Thus, it can be said that the delay can be condoned if it is
shown by way of material that some officer has deliberately acted, so that
the appeal could not be filed within a particular period.
12. The learned counsel for the applicant also relied upon the
judgment of Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) through L.Rs. and Ors Vs.
Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (decided on 09 th October 2023 by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5867 of 2015), and contended
that there is a difference between the explanation and excuse. He has
relied on paragraph No. 29.
13. Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has stated that
the Court must distinguish between an explanation and an excuse. An
explanation is designed to give someone all of the facts and lay out the
cause for something. It helps clarify the circumstances of a particular
6 26.odt
event. It allows the person to point out that something that has happened
is not his fault, if it really isn't. Care must, however, be taken to
distinguish an explanation from an excuse. A person often offers an
excuse to deny responsibility and consequences when under attack.
14. Keeping in mind the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble
Apex Court, suffice it to say that all the facts are not brought to the notice
of this Court to test whether the pleadings can be called as “explanation”
or an “excuse”.
15. In the case of Executive Officer, Antiyur Town Panchayat
Vs. G. Arumugam, (decided on 19th January 2025 by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Civil Appeal No.8577 of 2013), the officer of the government
authority required to file an appeal was suspended on allegations of
corruption. In that background, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that
there were deliberate lapses on the part of the executive officer of the
Panchayat, and accordingly, the delay was condoned.
16. In the case in hand, it is not even the case of the
applicants/acquiring body that any of the officers has either played
mischief or has acted in a mala fide manner.
17. It is pertinent to mention here that merely because some
person has obtained similar relief, it does not mean that others are also
entitled to the same benefit, unless material to extend parity is produced
on record.
18. So far as the contention of the learned counsel that there is a
7 26.odt
substantial difference between the rate awarded by the SLAO and the rate
granted by the Reference Court, suffice it to say that the merits of the
case are not required to be considered while deciding an application for
condonation of delay. This Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs.
Jasodabai T. Mate and Others, 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 6528, have
dealt with the point regarding condonation of delay in the appeal
preferred by the acquiring body. Discussing various judgments of the
Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble High Court, the Court finally
observed that the State is not expected to be negligent or to take no action
for years and let the matters become time-barred on account of its
negligence and inaction. The usual reasons of "official hassle" or
"approval at different levels" are hardly sufficient to justify condonation
of the delay. It was further observed that, since in law, advantage has
accrued to the non-applicants claimants and the same cannot be
withdrawn mechanically and that too without any sufficient cause being
shown by the appellants, delay can not be condoned.
19. Discussing the issue of condonation of delay from several
angles, ultimately, the application for condonation of delay of 589 days
was rejected by the Court.
20. It is in this background that I come to the conclusion that no
sufficient reason is made out for condoning the delay, and therefore, the
delay cannot be condoned.
21. Hence, the application is rejected.
8 26.odt
( RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. )
SPC
Checking your session…