Bombay High Court
THE G.M.I.D.C., THR THE EX. ENGINEER, LATUR MINOR IRRIGATION DIV. LATUR AND ORSversusBALIGIR NARSINGGIR GIRI
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- RAJNISH R VYAS
Holding
The court dismissed the applications for condonation of delay, refusing to allow the appeal to be filed after the extensive lapse.
Summary
The G.M.I.D.C. and related acquiring bodies filed a civil application seeking condonation of a 3,680‑day delay in filing an appeal against a 2009 award that enhanced compensation for acquired land. The applicant claimed the delay was due to procedural steps such as obtaining certified copies, legal opinions, and court fees, asserting it was unintentional and that refusal would cause irreparable loss. The court examined the timeline, noting that the certified copies were obtained within two months, but a legal opinion was only secured after four years, court fees after two more years, and the appeal was finally filed in 2020, amounting to a nine‑year lapse. The court found the applicant’s explanation inadequate, observing that the delay was not bona fide and that the rights had already crystallized in favor of the claimant. Consequently, the court dismissed all the pending applications for condonation of delay, holding that the delay could not be condoned.
Issues considered
- Whether the nine‑year delay in filing the appeal can be condoned under the law
- Whether the applicant’s explanation for the delay constitutes a bona fide or unintentional cause
- Whether the appellant is entitled to relief despite the crystallization of rights in favor of the claimant
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- limitation
- appeal filing
- civil application
- land acquisition
- compensation award
- procedural delay
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:3184
903.APPLN.9542.2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9542 OF 2022
IN
FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 4029 OF 2020
The G.M.I.D.C.,
Thr The Ex. Engineer,
Latur Minor Irrigation Div. Latur and others ...Appellants
Versus
Bhanudas Pandurang Kotame ...Respondent
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9554 OF 2022
IN
FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 4451 OF 2020
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9541 OF 2022
IN
FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 4029 OF 2020
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9543 OF 2022
IN
FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 4438 OF 2020
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9544 OF 2022
IN
FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 4438 OF 2020
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9559 OF 2022
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4442 OF 2020
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9560 OF 2022
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4442 OF 2020
Shrikant Malani Page 1 of 7
903.APPLN.9542.2022
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9557 OF 2022
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4445 OF 2020
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9558 OF 2022
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4445 OF 2020
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9555 OF 2022
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4448 OF 2020
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9556 OF 2022
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4448 OF 2020
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9553 OF 2022
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4451 OF 2020
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9551 OF 2022
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4454 OF 2020
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9552 OF 2022
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4454 OF 2020
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9545 OF 2022
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4458 OF 2020
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9546 OF 2022
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4458 OF 2020
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9547 OF 2022
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4461 OF 2020
Shrikant Malani Page 2 of 7
903.APPLN.9542.2022
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9548 OF 2022
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4461 OF 2020
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9549 OF 2022
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4464 OF 2020
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9550 OF 2022
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4464 OF 2020
***
Mr. Gaikwad Anil M., Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. Navin Shah h/f Mr. Natu Sharad V., Advocate for the Respondent
***
CORAM : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.
DATE : JANUARY 23, 2026
PER COURT :
1. This is an application for condonation of delay preferred by
the acquiring body. In order to appreciate the controversy in its proper
perspective, it is necessary to go through the pleadings of the
application, since there is huge delay of 3680 days in filing the
application.
2. The pleadings made in paragraph No.3 are re-produced as
under :
“3. The applicant states that, the impugned judgment
and award is passed by the Ld. Reference Court on
25.09.2009. The applicant states that, the
corporation in its capacity as corporation was not
Shrikant Malani Page 3 of 7
903.APPLN.9542.2022
party to the reference. There after the applicant
came to know abot the order passed by the Ld.
Reference court. The applicant states that,
immediately applicant has applied for the certified
copies on 23.11.2009 and received the same on
30.11.2009. The applicant states that, the Divisional
office by its communication dated 31.01.2011 has
forwarded the proposal for getting legal opinion
regarding filing of Appeal. The applicant states that,
the divisional office has taken the legal opinion and
has received the legal opinion from the legal cell on
27.01.2015. The applicant states that, after
obtaining the legal opinion the applicant has
approached the panel advocate for filing appeals
along with all the documents on 09.03.2015. The
applicant states that, the panels advocate by its letter
dated 30.04.2015 has informed about the court fees
which is required for filing appeals. The applicant
states that, the immediately thereafter the proposal
was submitted for grant of court fees. The applicant
states that, the court fee was received on
29.09.2017. The applicant states that, immediately
thereafter the appeal is preferred. The applicant
states that, in this process the time was required and
therefore, the delay is caused in filing the appeal.
The applicant states that, the delay is not intentional
and is purely circumstantial. The applicant states
Shrikant Malani Page 4 of 7
903.APPLN.9542.2022
that, reference court has exorbitantly enhanced the
compensation and has awarded the compensation @
Rs. 1,00,000/- per Hector for dry and @ Rs.
1,50,000/- per Hector for irrigated acquired land as
against Rs. 35,000/- & 75,000/- per Hector for dry
and irrigated land respectively granted by S.L.A.O.
The applicant states that, since the monitory claims
are involved, it is necessary to condone the delay
caused in preferring the appeal. The applicant states
that, if the delay is not condoned, the applicants
would suffer irreparable loss and hardships. The
balance of convenience lies in favour of the
applicant. If the application is not allowed the
applicant would suffer irreparable loss and
hardship.”
3. A perusal of the aforesaid pleadings would reveal that
there is a huge delay, which is not properly explained.
4. The following dates would clear the picture.
Date of Award by the Court : 25th September 2009.
Date of knowledge : not stated.
Date of application for grant of certified copies :
23rd November 2009.
Date on which certified copies was received :
30th November 2009.
Shrikant Malani Page 5 of 7
903.APPLN.9542.2022
Date on which the proposal was forwarded to the
divisional office on receipt of opinion by lawyer :
12th November 2010.
Date on which the divisional office has forwarded
proposal for getting legal opinion regarding filing
appeal : 31st January 2011.
Date on which legal opinion was received : 27th January
2015.
Date on which the panel advocate was contacted for
filing of appeal : 09th March 2015.
Date on which the advocate informed about the court
fees : 30th April 2015.
Date on which court fee was received : 29th September
2017.
Date on which the appeal was filed : 24th January 2020.”
5. The aforesaid dates would reveal that though the judgment
was passed in the year 2009, the certified copies was applied after two
months and thereafter, opinion was sought in the month of November
2010 i.e. almost after one year. After forwarding the proposal for
getting legal opinion in the year 2011, opinion was obtained after a
period of four years i.e. 27th January 2015. Though panel advocate
has informed about the court fees on 30 th April 2015, it is after a
period of more than two years, the court fees was made available in
Shrikant Malani Page 6 of 7
903.APPLN.9542.2022
the year 2017. In spite of the court fees being made available in the
year 2017, the appeal was filed in the year 2020. It is thus crystal
clear that length of delay is not properly explained by the appellant. It
is further pertinent to mention here that the averments in the
application nowhere discloses that the delay caused was bona fide or
unintentional. By lapse of more than nine years, the rights are already
crystallized in favour of the claimant. In that view of the matter, I am
not inclined to allow the application.
6. Accordingly, Civil Application No. 9543 of 2022, Civil
Application No. 9559 of 2022, Civil Application No. 9557 of 2022,
Civil Application No. 9555 of 2022, Civil Application No. 9553 of
2022, Civil Application No. 9551 of 2022. Civil Application No. 9545
of 2022, Civil Application No. 9547 of 2022 and Civil Application No.
9549 of 2022 filed for condonation of delay are dismissed.
7. Accordingly, the pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
( RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. )
Shrikant Malani Page 7 of 7
Checking your session…