Bombay High Court

SANGMESHWAR SIDHESHWEAR SHETE.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH THE COLLECTOR, OSMANABAD AND OTHERS.

Disposal: Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

Holding

Despite a 12‑year delay, the Court held that the first appeals must be restored because the applicants are agriculturists and the delay resulted from counsel’s oversight, and equity outweighs the procedural lapse.

Summary

The applicants, all agriculturists whose lands were acquired by the State, sought to quash the Registrar’s orders of 22 April 2014 that had refused registration of their first appeals and to have those appeals restored after a delay of 4,480 days. They argued that the delay was caused by their counsel’s oversight in not removing office objections and that the record of the first appeals had been destroyed, warranting reconstruction. The State opposed, contending that a 12‑year delay should not be condoned and that allowing restoration would burden the public exchequer. Justice Thombre, after hearing both sides, held that equity demanded relief for the applicants and that the delay could be condoned. Accordingly, the applications were allowed, the Registrar’s orders were set aside, the first appeals were restored to their original position, and the reconstructed appeals were to be accepted, though no interest or statutory benefits were awarded.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of 4,480 days in filing applications for restoration of first appeals can be condoned.
Whether the first appeals can be restored and reconstructed despite the passage of time and destruction of records.
Whether the Registrar’s orders refusing registration of the first appeals can be quashed.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act

Subjects

Land Acquisition
Condonation of Delay
Restoration of Appeals
Civil Procedure
Agricultural Land
Quashing Order

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:37377

CA 8841/26 & Ors.
1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

72 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8841 OF 2026
IN RC/663/2014

VITHAL KISAN NIKAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH THE COLLECTOR, OSMANABAD
AND OTHERS.
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. V.S. Tanwade
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. A.D. Wange
...

73 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8842 OF 2026
IN RC/665/2014

SHIVAJI PANDHARI MAJAGE AND OTHERS.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH THE COLLECTOR, OSMANABAD
AND OTHERS.
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. V.S. Tanwade
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. B.A. Shinde
...

74 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8843 OF 2026
IN RC/661/2014

SANGMESHWAR SIDHESHWEAR SHETE.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH THE COLLECTOR, OSMANABAD
AND OTHERS.
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. V.S. Tanwade
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.N. Morampalle
...

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
Dated : August 17, 2026

PER COURT :-

1. By these applications, the applicants/original claimants seeks to

quash and set aside the orders dated 22.4.2014 passed by the learned

Registrar Judicial and prayed for restoring the first appeals by condoning the
CA 8841/26 & Ors.
2

delay of 4480 days caused in filing the present applications. The applicants

also seeks permission to reconstruct the first appeals.

2. Mr. V.S. Tanwade, learned counsel for the applicants in all matters

submits that the registration of the first appeals is rejected on the ground

that the applicants failed to remove the office objections within stipulated

time. He submits that due to oversight, the counsel has not marked the

matters and therefore, the matters went unattended for years and after

getting the order in other first appeals, the counsel has verified the record

and found that the registration of the first appeals was already refused. He

submits that the applicants are agriculturists, their lands were acquired by

the State and for the fault of counsel, the applicants cannot be made to

suffer. Therefore, he submits that considering the above and in view of the

fact that the matters pertain to Land Acquisition Act, a beneficial legislation,

of poor agriculturists, the first appeals need to be restored on it’s original

position by condoning the delay.

3. The learned counsel further submits that after going through the

record, he found that entire record has already been destroyed and

therefore, he also seeks permission to reconstruct the first appeals.

4. The learned AGPs in respective matters vehemently opposed for

restoration of the first appeals by contending that there was huge delay of

12 years and in the event, this Court condones the delay, unnecessary

burden will be cast on the public exchequer. They submit that after filing the

appeal, applicants have to take care of the matters and to remove the office

objections within time, but the applicants have not taken any care to

remove the office objections. In view of the above, they pray to reject the

applications.
CA 8841/26 & Ors.
3

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties I have

gone through the record. These are the matters of agriculturists and for the

fault of their counsel, the applicants cannot be made to suffer. Hence, I hold

that the applications need to be allowed by condoning the delay. Hence, the

following order.

ORDER

(1) The applications are allowed.

(2) The delay in filing the restoration of first appeals is condoned.

(3) The orders dated 22.4.2014 passed by the learned Registrar Judicial

in FAST Nos. 2371/2014, 2380/2014 and 2340/2014 are quashed and set

aside.

(4) The present appeals are restored to it’s original position.

(5) Office to accept the reconstructed first appeals.

(6) The applicants are not entitled to receive interest and other statutory

benefits, if any, from the date of dismissal till today.

(7) Place these matters for final disposal on 24.8.2026.

( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )

ssc/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…