Bombay High Court

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER HETVANE DAM DIVISIONversusKASIM DAUD PATANKAR(DECEASED)THR.LRS.HANIFA KASIM PATANKAR AND ORS.

Decided: 8 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The Court held that the appellant did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the extensive delay, and therefore condonation of delay could not be granted.

Summary

The Executive Engineer appealed a Reference Award under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but filed the appeal after a delay of nearly five years. The appellant sought condonation of this delay, citing lack of timely action and procedural hurdles, including the Covid‑19 pandemic. The Court examined the chronology, noting that no steps were taken for two years after the award and that the explanations provided for the remaining delay were generic and insufficient. It held that the applicant failed to demonstrate any cause beyond its control that justified the extraordinary lapse. Consequently, the application for condonation was rejected, and the appeal could not be entertained on its merits.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant’s explanation suffices to justify condonation of a delay of 4 years 327 days in filing an appeal under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Whether the Court can exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to condone such a prolonged delay

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 18
Limitation Act

Subjects

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

Judgment

68-FA(ST)-13775-2023.doc

Sayali

Digitally
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
signed by
SAYALI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SAYALI DEEPAK
DEEPAK UPASANI
UPASANI Date:
2026.09.09
12:19:10
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 13775 OF 2023
+0530 WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7381 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7380 OF 2024

The Executive Engineer
Hetvane Dam Division … Appellant
V/s.
Kasim Daud Patankar (Deceased) Thr.
Lrs. Hanifa Kasim Patankar And Ors. … Respondents

Ms. Chaitrali Deshmukh for the Appellant/Applicant.
Mr. A.R. Patil, Additional G.P. for the State.

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.

DATED : SEPTEMBER 08, 2026
P.C.:

1. The applicant has filed Interim Application No. 7380 of 2024
seeking condonation of delay of 4 years and 327 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
68-FA(ST)-13775-2023.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 15 March 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. It is true that the period affected by the Covid Pandemic
deserves due consideration. 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

2
68-FA(ST)-13775-2023.doc

is no explanation for the period commencing from March 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 4 May 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
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

3
68-FA(ST)-13775-2023.doc

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 First Appeal as well as Interim Application
No. 7381 of 2024 for stay stand disposed of.

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…