Bombay High Court

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RAIGADversusDURGI VIKRAM GOTHAL SINCE DECEASED THR. LRS.

Decided: 25 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

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

Summary

The Executive Engineer, Raigad appealed against a Reference Award under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Durgi Vikram Gothal. The appellant sought condonation of a delay of over four years in filing the appeal, citing reasons including the COVID‑19 pandemic and procedural hurdles. The Court examined the chronology, noting that no action was taken from the award date (June 2018) until August 2020, and found the explanations for the intervening period unsatisfactory. It held that ordinary procedural steps such as engaging counsel and paying fees do not constitute sufficient cause for such a prolonged delay. Consequently, the Court rejected the interim application for condonation, dismissed the appeal on merits, and disposed of the related stay application.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant is entitled to condonation of a delay of 4 years and 263 days in filing an appeal under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Whether the explanations provided, including the impact of the COVID‑19 pandemic and procedural requirements, satisfy the requirement of a satisfactory cause for delay.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 18

Subjects

condonation of delay
limitation period
Land Acquisition Act
appeal
interim application
COVID-19 pandemic

Judgment

88-FA(ST)-15136-2023.doc

Sayali

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed
by SAYALI
SAYALI DEEPAK
DEEPAK UPASANI
Date:
UPASANI 2026.08.25
16:38:56 +0530

FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 15136 OF 2023

The Executive Engineer, Raigad … Appellant
V/s.
Durgi Vikram Gothal Since
Deceased Through Legal Heirs
Smt. Sundari Sudkoji Kadam … Respondent

WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7862 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7863 OF 2024

Ms. Chaitrali Deshmukh with Mr. Vikas More, for
Appellant.
Mr. A. R. Patil, Additional GP, for Respondent.

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.

DATED : AUGUST 25, 2026
P.C.:

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7862 OF 2024
1. The applicant has filed the present Interim Application
seeking condonation of delay of 4 years and 263 days in
preferring the present appeal arising out of the Reference Award
passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

1
88-FA(ST)-15136-2023.doc

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 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 18 June 2018.
However, the application seeking certified copy of the judgment
was filed on 17th 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

2
88-FA(ST)-15136-2023.doc

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 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 22nd 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

3
88-FA(ST)-15136-2023.doc

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.

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.7863 of 2024 for stay stand disposed of.

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…