Bombay High Court

GODAVARI MARATHWADA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LATUR AND ANRversusVITTHAL MAROTI KAMBLE AND ORS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE

Holding

The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs, and the 366‑day delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

Summary

The Court condoned a 366‑day delay in filing the appeal and allowed the application for condonation. The appellants relied on a prior order (First Appeal No. 1978/2023) which dismissed similar appeals without costs, arguing that the Reference Court correctly applied the Land Acquisition Act and did not consider post‑notification sale deeds. The learned counsel for the respondents agreed with that position. Consequently, the present appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, and any pending civil applications were also disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of 366 days in filing the appeal can be condoned.
Whether the appeal should be dismissed in line with the earlier order dated 3‑Dec‑2013.
Whether post‑notification sale deeds can be considered for compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act — s. 18, 4

Subjects

delay condonation
appeal dismissal
Land Acquisition Act
compensation
reference court
costs

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:27075

CA 8357/07
1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

901 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8357 OF 2007
IN FAST/13680/2007
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8358 OF 2007
IN FAST/13680/2007
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8359 OF 2007
IN FAST/13680/2007

GODAVARI MARATHWADA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
LATUR AND ANR
VERSUS
VITTHAL MAROTI KAMBLE AND ORS
...
Advocate for Applicant/appellant : Mr. S.G. Sangle
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Dande
...

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
Dated : July 07, 2026

PER COURT :-

1. In civil application for delay condonation, for the reasons stated in

the application, the application is allowed. Delay of 366 days caused in

filing the appeal is condoned.

2. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the present

appeal can be disposed of in view of the order dated 3.12.2013 passed by

this Court in First Appeal No. 1978/2023 (G.M.I.D.C. Latur and Anr. Vs.

Kantrao Kisanrao Kulkarni & Ors.) and other connected matters. The said

order reads thus :-

“. These appeals are filed against the award passed by
the Reference Court U/Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
The Reference Court partly allowed the references. Mr.
Sangle, the learned counsel for appellants states that, the
Court has relied on two decrees passed by the Civil Court
while computing the market rate. The decrees of the Civil
Court could not have been relied upon. According to the
learned counsel though sale deeds were post notification,
CA 8357/07
2

same also could not have been considered. The sale
instance in respect of Bagayat land is relied and on the
basis of said sale instance the compensation could not have
been awarded.

2. Mr. Tungar, the learned counsel for
respondents/claimants supports the judgment.

3. It appears that, suit for specific performance was
decreed in respect of land of the adjacent village in the year
1983 i. e. prior to three years of the notification U/Sec. 4 of
the L. A. Act. The Court has considered the same. It is in
respect of adjoining land. Moreover, the lands acquired are
small pieces of land. The enhanced compensation is from
Rs. 6,000/ to 25,000/ and only in two matters the
compensation is about Rs. 32,000/.

4. The Reference Court has not considered the post
notification sale deeds and has discarded the same as is
evident from the judgment. The Court has considered sale
instance which is available before the Court and which is in
the form of decree and considering the same awarded
compensation amount. Even the enhancement is not much.
The Reference Court has granted just compensation. As
such, the first appeals are dismissed, however, with no
order as to costs”

Therefore, he prays for similar order. The learned AGP fairly concedes this

position.

2. In view of the above, the present appeal is also dismissed, however,

with no order as to costs. Pending civil applications, if any, are also

disposed of.

( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )

ssc/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…