Bombay High Court

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MINOR LIFT IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT DIVISION PUNEversusNATHU BABU DALVI

Decided: 1 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The Court held that the delay was not condonable and dismissed the appeal.

Summary

The Executive Engineer (appellant) filed an interim application seeking condonation of a six‑year delay in filing a first appeal against an award passed by the District Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The appellant argued that the delay was due to the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the award (received on 12 November 2020) and to complete necessary procedural formalities, and also claimed an exclusion period from March 2020 to February 2022. The Court held that the date of the award (4 October 2017) constituted knowledge of the judgment, and the appellant provided no satisfactory explanation for the delay between October 2017 and September 2020, nor for the period from March 2022 to October 2023. Consequently, the Court found no sufficient cause to condone the delay, rejected the interim application, and held that the first appeal could not survive. All interim applications were therefore disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the six‑year delay in filing the first appeal can be condoned under the provisions governing condonation of delay.
Whether the period from March 2020 to February 2022 can be excluded from the calculation of delay.
Whether the date of the award constitutes the date of knowledge for the purpose of assessing delay.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act — s. 18

Subjects

condonation of delay
first appeal
Land Acquisition Act
Section 18
procedural delay
certified copy
interim application

Judgment

78-IA-17683-2023.doc

Sayali

SAYALI
Digitally signed
by SAYALI
DEEPAK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
DEEPAK UPASANI
UPASANI Date:
2026.09.01
19:51:11 +0530
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17683 OF 2023
IN
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 31904 OF 2023

Executive Engineer Minor Lift
Irrigation Management Division Pune … Appellant
V/s.
Nathu Babu Dalvi … Respondent

Mr. Arnav U. with Mr. Ramesh Dube Patil i/b Jay and
Co., for Appellant.
Mr. A. R. Patil, Additional GP for State- Respondent .

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.

DATED : SEPTEMBER 1, 2026
P.C.
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17683 OF 2023

1. By this application, the applicant has requested that the
delay of about six years in filing the First Appeal be condoned.
The appeal arises from the Award passed by the District Court in
Land Reference No. 13 of 2009 under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act.

2. The applicant seeks condonation of the delay mainly on
the ground that after the certified copy became available and
was delivered on 12 November 2020, the matter was considered

1
78-IA-17683-2023.doc

by the legal department. A decision was then taken to file an
appeal. According to the applicant, some additional time was
required to complete the necessary official and procedural
formalities before filing the First Appeal.

3. The applicant has also claimed the benefit of exclusion of
the period from March 2020 to February 2022. However, the
record shows that the judgment and Award were passed on 04
October 2017. It is not disputed that the applicant was a party to
the proceedings and was heard before the Award was passed.
Therefore, in law, the date of the judgment itself must be treated
as the date on which the applicant had knowledge of the
impugned judgment and Award. It further appears that the
application for a certified copy was made only on 29 September
2020. Even if the period from March 2020 until the date of
applying for the certified copy is excluded from consideration,
the applicant has not given any satisfactory explanation for the
delay between 04 October 2017 and 29 September 2020.
Similarly, no sufficient explanation has been given for the period
from March 2022 till October 2023. The reason stated in
paragraph 8 is general in nature and does not satisfactorily
explain the delay during these periods. In these circumstances,
this Court finds that sufficient cause for condonation of delay
has not been shown. Hence, no case is made out for condoning
the delay and the application deserves to be rejected.

4. As a result, the First Appeal cannot survive for
consideration.

2
78-IA-17683-2023.doc

5. Consequently, the Interim Applications also do not survive
and are disposed of accordingly.

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…