Bombay High Court

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RAIGAD IRRIGATION, RAIGADversusSHANKAR MARUTI CHILE AND ORS.

Decided: 1 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The court held that the appellant’s explanation for the delay was insufficient and therefore condonation of delay could not be granted.

Summary

The Executive Engineer, Raigad Irrigation, filed a first appeal against a reference award passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appeal was lodged more than four years after the award, prompting the appellant to seek condonation of the delay through Interim Application No. 6666 of 2024. The court scrutinised the appellant’s explanation and found a substantial period of inaction from April 2018 to August 2020 with no satisfactory justification. It held that the applicant failed to show that the delay was beyond its control and that ordinary procedural requirements could not excuse such a prolonged lapse. Accordingly, the court rejected the condonation application, dismissed the appeal, and disposed of the related stay application.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of over four years in filing an appeal under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 can be condoned.
Whether the explanation provided by the appellant satisfies the requirement for condonation of delay.
Whether the appeal can be entertained on its merits in the absence of condoned delay.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 18

Subjects

condonation of delay
limitation period
Land Acquisition Act
Section 18
appeal
public policy
procedural law

Judgment

73-FAst-25319-22+.doc

Sayali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SAYALI
Digitally signed
by SAYALI
DEEPAK
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
DEEPAK UPASANI
UPASANI Date: 2026.09.01
20:28:49 +0530

FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 25319 OF 2022
The Executive Engineer Raigad
Irrigation, Raigad … Appellant
V/s.
Shankar Maruti Chile and Others … Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6667 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6666 OF 2024

Ms. Chaitrali Deshmukh, for Appellant-Applicant.
Mr.A. R. Patil, Additional GP for State- Respondents.

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.

DATED : SEPTEMBER 1, 2026
P.C.:
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6666 OF 2024

1. The applicant has filed the present Interim Application
seeking condonation of delay of 4 years and 91 days in preferring
the present appeal arising out of the Reference Award passed
under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

2. The cause shown for condonation of such substantial delay is
stated in paragraph No. 5 of the application. The Court has
carefully gone through the said pleadings. Since the delay is of an
extraordinary length, the explanation furnished by the applicant is
required to be examined with greater scrutiny. It is well settled
that while a liberal approach may be adopted in considering an

1
73-FAst-25319-22+.doc

application for condonation of delay, such approach cannot
dispense with the requirement of furnishing a satisfactory
explanation covering the entire period of delay. The applicant is
therefore required to place before the Court material indicating
that despite acting with due diligence, the appeal could not be
filed within the prescribed period of limitation. It is in the light of
these principles that the explanation set out in paragraph No. 5 is
required to be assessed.

3. After considering the recitals contained in paragraph No. 5 of
the application and after examining the chronology of events
placed on record, it becomes evident that the impugned judgment
and award came to be passed on 12 April 2018. However, the
application seeking certified copy of the judgment was filed on 17
August 2020. This factual position itself shows that for a
considerable period after passing of the award, no steps were
taken by the applicant. The Court finds that there is no satisfactory
explanation for this period. The pleadings are silent as to what
prevented the applicant from approaching the Court or taking
necessary steps immediately after pronouncement of the award.
Mere general statements without particulars cannot be treated as
sufficient cause, particularly when the delay runs into several
years.

4. The Courts have also taken judicial notice of the difficulties
faced by litigants during that period. Therefore, even if the period
from March 2020 till March 2022 is excluded from consideration
the difficulty still remains that there is no explanation for the
period commencing from April 2018 till March 2020. The

2
73-FAst-25319-22+.doc

applicant has not disclosed any circumstances showing sufficient
reason which could justify inaction during this period. In absence
of such explanation, the Court is unable to conclude that the delay
occurred due to reasons beyond the control of the applicant.

5. The appeal ultimately came to be filed on 10th October, 2022
Every litigant intending to challenge a judgment is expected to
take necessary steps for engaging an advocate and arranging court
fees within a reasonable period. These are ordinary requirements
of litigation and cannot constitute sufficient cause for condoning a
prolonged delay extending over several years. The application does
not disclose any circumstance showing why these procedural
requirements could not be completed earlier.

6. The Court is conscious that refusal to condone delay may
result in denial of adjudication on merits. However, limitation
provisions cannot be rendered meaningless. The law of limitation
is founded upon public policy. When a party seeks indulgence of
the Court after expiry of the prescribed period, the burden lies
upon such party to satisfactorily explain the delay. In the present
matter, the explanation furnished remains incomplete.
Consequently, this Court is unable to hold that sufficient cause has
been made out for exercise of discretionary jurisdiction. In my
opinion, therefore, the application for condonation of delay cannot
be allowed.

7. The Interim Application accordingly deserves to be rejected
and is rejected.

3
73-FAst-25319-22+.doc

8. In view of the dismissal of the Interim Application seeking
condonation of delay, the present First Appeal cannot be
entertained on merits.

9. Accordingly, the present First Appeal as well as Interim
Application No. 6667 of 2024 for stay stand disposed of.

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…