Bombay High Court
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RAIGAD IRRIGATION, RAIGADversusABDULLA SAMSUDDIN MAHALDAR AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that the explanation for the delay was insufficient and therefore condonation of delay could not be granted.
Summary
The Executive Engineer filed a first appeal against a Reference Award passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but delayed filing the appeal for 4 years and 323 days. An interim application was made seeking condonation of this delay, with the applicant alleging various reasons including the COVID-19 pandemic. The court examined the chronology, noting that the award was dated 19 March 2018, a certified copy was only sought on 25 January 2021, and the appeal was finally filed on 4 May 2023, leaving a substantial unexplained gap. The court held that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation covering the entire period of delay, and that ordinary procedural requirements cannot constitute sufficient cause. Consequently, the application for condonation was rejected, and the appeal could not be entertained on its merits.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 4 years 323 days in filing an appeal against a Section 18 Land Acquisition Award can be condoned.
- Whether the explanation provided by the appellant satisfies the requirement for condonation of delay.
- Whether the appeal can be entertained on merits after the denial of condonation.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 18
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- limitation period
- Land Acquisition Act
- Section 18
- appeal
- COVID-19 pandemic
- procedural law
Judgment
77-FA(ST)-13783-2023.doc
Sayali
SAYALI
Digitally signed
by SAYALI
DEEPAK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
DEEPAK UPASANI
UPASANI Date:
2026.09.01
19:51:13 +0530
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.13783 OF 2023
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 9776 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 9775 OF 2024
The Executive Engineer … Appellant
V/s.
Abdulla Samsuddin Mahaldar And Ors. … Respondents
Ms. Chaitrali A. Deshmukh, for Appellant.
Mr. A. R. Patil, Additional GP for State- for
Respondent.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 1, 2026
P.C.:
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 9775 OF 2024
1. The applicant has filed the present Interim Application
seeking condonation of delay of 4 years and 323 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
1
77-FA(ST)-13783-2023.doc
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 19 March 2018.
However, the application seeking certified copy of the judgment
was filed on 25 January 2021. 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.
2
77-FA(ST)-13783-2023.doc
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 April
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. The appeal ultimately came to be filed on 4 May 2023.
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
3
77-FA(ST)-13783-2023.doc
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. 9776 of 2024 for stay stand disposed of.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
4
Checking your session…