Bombay High Court

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, KALWAversusCHINTAMAN KISAN GAIKWAD AND ANR.

Decided: 7 July 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: AMIT BORKAR

Holding

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

Summary

The Executive Engineer of the Minor Irrigation Department filed an interim application seeking condonation of a delay of five years and 295 days in filing an appeal against a Reference Award passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court examined the applicant’s explanation for the delay, noting that no satisfactory reason was given for the period from February 2019 to March 2020, and that the Covid‑19 pandemic could only excuse the period March 2020 to March 2022. The Court also found the post‑pandemic explanation – difficulty in appointing counsel and paying fees – to be inadequate. Emphasising the public‑policy basis of limitation statutes, the Court held that the burden of proof lay with the applicant, which was not met. Consequently, the application for condonation was rejected, the appeal could not be heard on its merits, and both the appeal and the related stay application were disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant can be granted condonation of a delay of over five years in filing an appeal under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Whether the explanations offered for the delay satisfy the requirement of a satisfactory cause under limitation law.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 18

Subjects

condonation of delay
limitation period
Land Acquisition Act
Section 18
appeal
Covid-19 pandemic
procedural delay

Judgment

47-ST-9712-2025 with connected.doc

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

FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.9712 OF 2025

The Executive Engineer, Minor
Irrigation Department, Kalwa … Appellant
V/s.
Digitally
signed by
SHABNOOR
Chintaman Kisan Gaikwad & Anr. … Respondents
SHABNOOR AYUB
AYUB PATHAN
PATHAN Date:
2026.07.07
17:40:17
+0530 WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.8550 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.8549 OF 2025

Ms. Leena Patil, for the Appellant/Applicant.
Mr. A. R. Patil, Addl. GP, for the State – Respondents.

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.

DATED : JULY 7, 2026
P.C.:
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.8549 OF 2025

1. The applicant has filed the present Interim Application
seeking condonation of delay of 5 years and 295 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

1
47-ST-9712-2025 with connected.doc

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 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 27 February 2019. 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
47-ST-9712-2025 with connected.doc

is no explanation for the period commencing from February 2019
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 20 th February 2025. 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
47-ST-9712-2025 with connected.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 present First Appeal as well as Interim
Application No. 8550 of 2025 for stay stand disposed of.

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…