Bombay High Court

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MINOR LIFT IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT DIVISION PUNEversusBHIVA RAMJI THULE SINCE DECEASED THR. HIS LRS. PANDURANG BHIVA THULE

Decided: 18 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The Court held that the appellants failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay, and therefore condonation of the delay was not warranted.

Summary

The appellants sought 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. They argued that the delay was due to the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the award and to complete internal procedural formalities. The Court held that the date of the award (04 October 2017) is the date the appellants had knowledge of the judgment, and the explanations provided for the intervening periods were unsatisfactory. No sufficient cause for the delay was demonstrated. Consequently, the application for condonation was rejected, the first appeal was deemed unable to proceed, and the related interim applications were disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the delay of approximately six years in filing the first appeal can be condoned under the provisions governing appeals.
Whether the appellants have shown sufficient cause for the delay between the date of the award and the filing of the appeal.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act — s. 18

Subjects

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

Judgment

                                                                        92-FA(ST)-35395-2023.doc



                      Sayali


                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                     FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 35395 OF 2023

SAYALI                Executive Engineer Minor Lift
DEEPAK                Irrigation Management
UPASANI               Division Pune And Anr.                      … Appellants
Digitally signed by               V/s.
SAYALI DEEPAK
UPASANI               Bhiva Ramji Thule Since Deceased
Date: 2026.08.19
15:16:16 +0530        Thr. His Lrs. Pandurang Bhiva Thule         … Respondents
                                                    WITH
                                     INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 374 OF 2024
                                                    WITH
                                     INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 375 OF 2024


                      Mr. A. Urankar with Ramesh Dube Patil, with Ashish
                      Gabhale i/b Jay and Co. for Appellants.
                      Mr. A. R. Patil, Additional GP for State-Respondent.


                                                  CORAM     : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                                  DATED     : AUGUST 18, 2026
                      P.C.:

                                     INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 374 OF 2024

                      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. 50 of 2009 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition
                      Act.




                                                        1
                                                       92-FA(ST)-35395-2023.doc


2.    The applicant seeks condonation of the delay mainly on the
ground that after the certified copy became available and was
delivered on 24th 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.    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.




                                     2
                                                  92-FA(ST)-35395-2023.doc


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.)




                                   3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…