Bombay High Court

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, PUNE AND ANR.versusRAGHUNATH MALHARI THULE(DECEASED)THR.LRS.1.1)TANAJI RAGHUNATH THULE AND ORS.

Decided: 18 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The court held that no sufficient cause was shown for the delay, so condonation was denied and the appeal dismissed.

Summary

The appellants, the Executive Engineer and others, 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. The award was dated 4 October 2017, but the certified copy was obtained only on 1 November 2023, after which the appellants filed the appeal. The court examined the periods of delay, noting that the appellants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the gap between 2017 and 2020, as well as between 2022 and 2023. It held that the judgment date constitutes knowledge of the award, and the reasons given were too general to constitute sufficient cause. Consequently, the court rejected the application for condonation, dismissed the first appeal, and disposed of the related interim applications.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of approximately six years in filing a first appeal under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act can be condoned.
Whether the appellants have shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act — s. 18

Subjects

Land Acquisition
Condonation of Delay
Civil Appeal
Statutory Limitation
Section 18

Judgment

                                                                               93-FA(ST)-35502-2023.doc


                      Sayali
                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                        FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 35502 OF 2023
                      The Executive Engineer, Minor
                      Irrigation Division, Pune and Anr.             … Appellants
SAYALI                            V/s.
DEEPAK                Raghunath Malhari Thule (Deceased)
UPASANI               Through LRS. Tanaji Raghunath Thule
Digitally signed by   And Ors.                                       … Respondents
SAYALI DEEPAK

                                                      WITH
UPASANI
Date: 2026.08.19

                                       INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 385 OF 2024
15:16:16 +0530


                                                      WITH
                                       INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 386 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. 385 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. 52 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 1st November, 2023, the matter was considered by the
                      legal department. A decision was then taken to file an appeal.



                                                            1
                                                       93-FA(ST)-35502-2023.doc


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         17 th October, 2023. 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.

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


                                                 (AMIT BORKAR, J.)




                                    2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…