( 1 ) 921 CA 6490 OF 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 921 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6490 OF 2020 IN FAST/23873/2019 TATYA SEKHA PATIL AND ORS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ... Mr. R. V. Naiknavare, Advocate for Applicants Mr. S. N. Kendre, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – State Mr. M. N. Navandar, Advocate for Respondent No.3 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6491 OF 2020 IN FAST/23871/2019 SHEKHA GHANSHAM PATIL (DIED) THR LRS TATYA AND ORS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS … Mr. R. V. Naiknavare, Advocate for Applicants Mr. S. N. Kendre, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – State Mr. M. N. Navandar, Advocate for Respondent No.3 … CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. DATE : 02.09.2026 PER COURT :- CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6490 OF 2020 IN FAST/23873/2019 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6491 OF 2020 IN FAST/23871/2019 . Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 10.04.2013 passed by the learned 4th Civil Judge Senior Division, Osmanabad in Land 2026:BHC-AUG:40220 ( 2 ) 921 CA 6490 OF 2020 Acquisition Reference Nos.806 of 2007 and 182 of 2007 respectively, the claimants have filed present appeals for enhancement. There is delay of 2212 days caused in filing the first appeals and hence the Civil Applications are filed for condonation of delay. 2. Mr. R. V. Naiknaware, learned Advocate for the claimants would submit that the acquired land was the only source of livelihood of the claimants and that they were granted a very meagre amount by way of compensation. He would submit that the financial crisis faced by the applicants deprived them of availing the remedy of appeals at an earlier stage. He would submit that there is ample material on record which would justify the enhancement claimed in the appeals. The applicants ought not to be deprived of their legitimate claim for enhancement when the other claimants have received enhancement in the same land acquisition proceedings. He would submit that the applicants waive interest of every kind so far as the delayed period is concerned. He would rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and ors., (Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.670 of 2020 and connected matters), decided on 23.04.2025. ( 3 ) 921 CA 6490 OF 2020 3. The request is strongly opposed by Mr. Navandar, learned Advocate for the acquiring body. He would submit that the applicants cannot be permitted to take benefit of their own wrong in causing the delay. He would submit that even otherwise, the learned Trial Court has rightly granted compensation based on the evidence on record. With this, a prayer is made to reject the applications. 4. Heard the parties. 5. It is not in dispute that the applicants are land losers whose entire source of livelihood has been taken away under compulsory acquisition of their lands. The compensation scheme is beneficial legislation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a liberal approach has to be adopted by the Courts while considering a claim for enhancement under such beneficial legislation. Certainly, the observations rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Kumar (supra) are applicable to the present case. 6. For the reasons stated in the applications, the Civil Applications are allowed. Delay caused in filing the first appeals stands condoned. 7. The First Appeals be registered. ( 4 ) 921 CA 6490 OF 2020 8. It is made clear that the applicants shall not be entitled to the interest and statutory benefits for the delayed period. FIRST APPEALS 9. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 14.10.2026. Learned AGP waives service of notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2 – State. Mr. Navandar, learned Advocate waives service of notice for respondent No.3. 10. Call Record and Proceeding. [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.] PRW