Bombay High Court

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CIVIL CONSTRCUTION PROJECT MSPGCL THERMAL POWER STATIONversusCHANDRABHAN AMBADAS SAKHARE AND ANR

Disposal: Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute
Bench: S G CHAPALGAONKAR

Holding

The Court held that the delay was condonable, the applicant may withdraw 75% of the deposited compensation subject to conditions, and the stay application is allowed.

Summary

The applicant sought condonation of a 370‑day delay in filing an appeal, arguing administrative reasons for the lapse. The Court examined the explanation and found the delay justified, thereby condoning it. In a separate application, the applicant requested permission to withdraw the compensation amount deposited by the acquiring body following a reference court award, contending that he had not received enhanced compensation for land acquired in 2008. The Court held that, based on the reference court’s reliance on comparable village sales, the applicant was entitled to withdraw 50% of the deposited amount upon giving an undertaking and an additional 25% upon furnishing a surety. A further application for a stay concerning the deposited amount was allowed, granting the claimant liberty to pursue any further remedy. Finally, the first appeal was admitted and procedural formalities such as printing and paper books were dispensed with.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of 370 days in filing an appeal can be condoned under civil procedure rules.
Whether the applicant is entitled to withdraw part of the compensation amount deposited by the acquiring body.
Whether the interest on compensation should be calculated from the date of possession or the date of award.
Whether a stay of the order regarding the deposited compensation amount should be granted.

Subjects

condonation of delay
compensation withdrawal
land acquisition
stay order
civil procedure
reference court award
interest on compensation

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:25888
988 CA 2255 26.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

988 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2255 OF 2026
IN FAST/24601/2025
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8776 OF 2025
IN FAST/24601/2025
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8775 OF 2025
IN FAST/24601/2025

CHANDRABHAN SO AMBADAS SAKHARE
VERSUS
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (CIVIL), CIVIL CONSTRUCTION PROJECT,
MSPGCL
...
Advocate for Applicant/Claimant : Mr. Parikshit S. Mantri h/f Mr. Parag V.
Barde
Advocate for Respondent no. 1 : Mr. Akash D. Gade
A.G.P. for Respondent no. 2 : Mr. S. G. Sangale
...
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

DATE : 02.07.2026

PER COURT :

APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY :

1. Heard learned counsel Mr. Gade for the applicant.

2. The applicant seeks to condone delay of 370 days caused in filing
appeal. Perused the application and reasons stated therein. Apparently, the
delay is occasioned on account of administrative reasons, which are duly
explained in the application. In the result, case is made out to condone the
delay.

3. The Civil Application is allowed. Delay of 370 days is condoned. Civil
Application is disposed of.

1/3
988 CA 2255 26.odt
4. Appeal be registered subject to removal of the office objections.

CIVIL APPLICATION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF AMOUNT

5. The applicant seeks permission to withdraw the amount deposited by
the respondent-Acquiring Body in pursuance of the Award passed by the
Reference Court.

6. Learned counsel Mr. Gaikwad appearing for the applicant submits that
the applicant has lost his lands in the year 2008 due to compulsory
acquisition and till date he has not received the enhanced compensation, as
determined by the Reference Court.

7. Learned counsel Mr. Gade, appearing for the Acquiring Body
vehemently opposes the application contending that the interest on
compensation amount is granted from the date of possession and not from
the date of Award. Further, he submits that the assessment of compensation
on the basis of the sale-deeds, which cannot be termed as comparative sale
instances, is excessive and exorbitant.

8. Having considered the reasons adopted by the Reference Court, this
Court find that the Reference Court, relying upon sale instances from same
village made the assessment of compensation. In that view of the matter,
the applicant is entitled to withdraw the compensation amount. Hence,
following order is passed :

ORDER

(I) The application is partly allowed. The applicant is
permitted to withdraw 50% of compensation amount as
deposited by the Acquiring Body subject to furnishing of
usual undertaking to the satisfaction of the Registrar
(Judicial) of this Court that he shall redeposit the amount
in case this Court directs him to do so.

2/3
988 CA 2255 26.odt
(ii) The applicant is further permitted to withdraw
25% of the amount of compensation deposited, on
furnishing solvent surety/security to the satisfaction of the
Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.

(iii) The Civil Application is disposed of.

CIVIL APPLICATION FOR STAY :

9. Learned counsel Mr. Gade for the Appellant/applicant informed that
entire amount as per award passed by the Reference Court is deposited with
the Registry.

10. The aforesaid statement is disputed by the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondent/claimant, contending that the amount deposited
would not constitute entire amount of compensation. However, there is no
impediment in considering the present application. In the result, the
application is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’ with liberty in favour of
the claimant to pursue his remedy for deposit of the amount, if any due as
per the Award.

11. The Civil Application is disposed of.

FIRST APPEAL :

12. Admit.

13. Print and paper book is dispensed with.

( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)

mkd/-

3/3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…