Bombay High Court

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, PUNE AND ANR.versusSHANTABAI SATWA DALVI AND ORS.

Decided: 1 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The court held that no sufficient cause for condoning the six‑year delay was shown, and therefore the application for condonation was rejected.

Summary

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Pune filed a first appeal against an award passed by the District Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The appeal was filed six years after the award, and the appellant sought condonation of the delay, citing the period from March 2020 to February 2022 as excluded and claiming procedural formalities caused the lag. The court examined when the appellant had knowledge of the award, noting that the judgment was dated 4 October 2017 and the certified copy was only applied for on 29 September 2020. It found the explanations for the delay between 2017‑2020 and 2022‑2023 unsatisfactory and held that no sufficient cause was shown. Consequently, the application for condonation was rejected, the first appeal could not survive, and the interim applications were disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the six‑year delay in filing the first appeal can be condoned under procedural law
Whether the period from March 2020 to February 2022 can be excluded from the delay calculation
Whether the appellant had knowledge of the award on 4 October 2017 for the purpose of assessing delay

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act — s. 18

Subjects

condonation of delay
first appeal
Land Acquisition Act
procedural law
civil appellate jurisdiction

Judgment

81-FA(ST)+31853-2023.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

FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 31853 OF 2023
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17691 OF 2023
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.17692 OF 2023

The Executive Engineer, Minor
Irrigation Division, Pune And Anr. … Appellants
V/s.
Shantabai Satwa Dalvi And Ors. … Respondents

Mr. Arnav U. with 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. 17691 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. 16 of 2009 under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act.

1
81-FA(ST)+31853-2023.doc

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
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

2
81-FA(ST)+31853-2023.doc

the delay and the application deserves to be rejected.

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

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…