Bombay High Court
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HETVANE DAM DIVISION, RAIGADversusRAGHUNATH SAKHARAM SUTAR AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The application for condonation of delay is rejected, and the appeal cannot be entertained on its merits.
Summary
The Executive Engineer, Hetvane, appealed a Reference Award passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, seeking condonation of a delay of 4 years and 265 days in filing the appeal. The appellant argued that the COVID‑19 pandemic and procedural requirements caused the delay. The Court examined the chronology, noting that no steps were taken between the award (June 2018) and the request for a certified copy (September 2020), and that the explanations for the subsequent periods were vague and ordinary. While acknowledging the pandemic’s impact, the Court found no satisfactory justification for the earlier two‑year gap or for the further delay after courts resumed normal functioning. Consequently, the Court held that the burden of explaining the delay was not met and rejected the condonation application, dismissing the appeal on merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is entitled to condonation of a delay of over four years in filing an appeal against a Section 18 Land Acquisition Award.
- Whether the explanations provided, including the impact of the COVID‑19 pandemic and procedural matters, constitute sufficient cause for condonation.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 18
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- limitation period
- Land Acquisition Act
- appeal
- COVID-19 pandemic
- procedural delay
Judgment
93-FAst-15188-23+.doc
Sayali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 15188 OF 2023
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7321 OF 2024
SAYALI WITH
DEEPAK
UPASANI INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7323 OF 2024
WITH
Digitally signed
by SAYALI
DEEPAK
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 15188 OF 2023
UPASANI
Date: 2026.09.22
16:50:39 +0530
The Executive Engineer, Hetvane, Dam
Division Raigad … Appellant
V/s.
Raghunath Sakharam Sutar
And Ors. … Respondents
Mr. A. R. Patil, Additional GP for Appellant.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 22, 2026
P.C.:
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7321 OF 2024
1. The applicant has filed the present Interim Application
seeking condonation of delay of 4 years and 265 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
1
93-FAst-15188-23+.doc
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
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 15 June 2018 However, the
application seeking certified copy of the judgment was filed on 07
September 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. It is true that the period affected by the Covid Pandemic
deserves due consideration. The Courts have also taken judicial
2
93-FAst-15188-23+.doc
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 June 2018 till
March 2020. The 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. Even for the period subsequent to March 2022, the
explanation furnished does not inspire confidence. The appeal
ultimately came to be filed on 05 June 2023. Thus, even after
normal functioning of Courts had resumed, there remained a
further period for which justification was required. The reasons
stated are that an advocate was required to be appointed and that
arrangements had to be made for payment of court fees. Such
explanations are of a general nature. 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
3
93-FAst-15188-23+.doc
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.
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. 7323 of 2024 for stay stand disposed of.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
4
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.