Bombay High Court

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CIVIL CONSTRCUTION PROJECT MSPGCL THERMAL POWER STATIONversusMITHU KUNDLIK SHINDE AND ANR

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

Holding

The Court held that the delay may be condoned, the applicant may withdraw a portion of the deposited compensation subject to conditions, and the stay application is permissible, thereby admitting the appeal.

Summary

Mithu So Kundlik Shinde applied to the Bombay High Court seeking condonation of a 274‑day delay in filing an appeal, permission to withdraw part of the compensation amount deposited by the acquiring body, and a stay of proceedings concerning the deposit. The Court found that the delay was due to administrative reasons and therefore condoned it. It held that the reference court’s assessment of compensation, based on comparable sales in the same village, justified allowing the applicant to withdraw 50% of the deposited amount upon an undertaking and an additional 25% upon furnishing a surety. The Court also allowed the stay application, permitting the claimant to pursue remedies for any shortfall in the deposited amount. The first appeal was admitted and procedural formalities were dispensed with.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of 274 days in filing an appeal can be condoned.
Whether the applicant is entitled to withdraw part of the compensation amount deposited by the acquiring body.
Whether interest on compensation should accrue from the date of possession or the date of award.
Whether a stay should be granted concerning the deposit of the compensation amount.

Subjects

condonation of delay
compensation withdrawal
land acquisition
interest on compensation
stay of proceedings
first appeal

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:25866
982 CA 2249 26.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

982 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2249 OF 2026
IN FAST/24621/2025
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8788 OF 2025
IN FAST/24621/2025
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8787 OF 2025
IN FAST/24621/2025

MITHU SO KUNDLIK SHINDE
VERSUS
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CIVIL, CIVIL CONSTRUCTION PROJECT,
MSPGCL
...
Advocate for Applicant/Claimant : Mr. T G Gaikwad
Advocate for Respondent No. 1/Applicant : Mr. Akash D. Gade
...
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 274 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 is condoned.

4. Appeal be registered subject to removal of the office objections.

1/3
982 CA 2249 26.odt
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.

(ii) The applicant is further permitted to withdraw

2/3
982 CA 2249 26.odt
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…