903.APPLN.9542.2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9542 OF 2022 IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 4029 OF 2020 The G.M.I.D.C., Thr The Ex. Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Div. Latur and others ...Appellants Versus Bhanudas Pandurang Kotame ...Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9554 OF 2022 IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 4451 OF 2020 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9541 OF 2022 IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 4029 OF 2020 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9543 OF 2022 IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 4438 OF 2020 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9544 OF 2022 IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 4438 OF 2020 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9559 OF 2022 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 4442 OF 2020 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9560 OF 2022 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 4442 OF 2020 Shrikant Malani 2026:BHC-AUG:3187 903.APPLN.9542.2022 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9557 OF 2022 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 4445 OF 2020 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9558 OF 2022 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 4445 OF 2020 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9555 OF 2022 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 4448 OF 2020 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9556 OF 2022 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 4448 OF 2020 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9553 OF 2022 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 4451 OF 2020 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9551 OF 2022 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 4454 OF 2020 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9552 OF 2022 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 4454 OF 2020 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9545 OF 2022 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 4458 OF 2020 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9546 OF 2022 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 4458 OF 2020 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9547 OF 2022 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 4461 OF 2020 Shrikant Malani 903.APPLN.9542.2022 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9548 OF 2022 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 4461 OF 2020 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9549 OF 2022 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 4464 OF 2020 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9550 OF 2022 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 4464 OF 2020 *** Mr. Gaikwad Anil M., Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. Navin Shah h/f Mr. Natu Sharad V., Advocate for the Respondent *** CORAM : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. DATE : JANUARY 23, 2026 PER COURT : 1. This is an application for condonation of delay preferred by the acquiring body. In order to appreciate the controversy in its proper perspective, it is necessary to go through the pleadings of the application, since there is huge delay of 3680 days in filing the application. 2. The pleadings made in paragraph No.3 are re-produced as under : “3. The applicant states that, the impugned judgment and award is passed by the Ld. Reference Court on 25.09.2009. The applicant states that, the corporation in its capacity as corporation was not Shrikant Malani 903.APPLN.9542.2022 party to the reference. There after the applicant came to know abot the order passed by the Ld. Reference court. The applicant states that, immediately applicant has applied for the certified copies on 23.11.2009 and received the same on 30.11.2009. The applicant states that, the Divisional office by its communication dated 31.01.2011 has forwarded the proposal for getting legal opinion regarding filing of Appeal. The applicant states that, the divisional office has taken the legal opinion and has received the legal opinion from the legal cell on 27.01.2015. The applicant states that, after obtaining the legal opinion the applicant has approached the panel advocate for filing appeals along with all the documents on 09.03.2015. The applicant states that, the panels advocate by its letter dated 30.04.2015 has informed about the court fees which is required for filing appeals. The applicant states that, the immediately thereafter the proposal was submitted for grant of court fees. The applicant states that, the court fee was received on 29.09.2017. The applicant states that, immediately thereafter the appeal is preferred. The applicant states that, in this process the time was required and therefore, the delay is caused in filing the appeal. The applicant states that, the delay is not intentional and is purely circumstantial. The applicant states Shrikant Malani 903.APPLN.9542.2022 that, reference court has exorbitantly enhanced the compensation and has awarded the compensation @ Rs. 1,00,000/- per Hector for dry and @ Rs. 1,50,000/- per Hector for irrigated acquired land as against Rs. 35,000/- & 75,000/- per Hector for dry and irrigated land respectively granted by S.L.A.O. The applicant states that, since the monitory claims are involved, it is necessary to condone the delay caused in preferring the appeal. The applicant states that, if the delay is not condoned, the applicants would suffer irreparable loss and hardships. The balance of convenience lies in favour of the applicant. If the application is not allowed the applicant would suffer irreparable loss and hardship.” 3. A perusal of the aforesaid pleadings would reveal that there is a huge delay, which is not properly explained. 4. The following dates would clear the picture. Date of Award by the Court : 25th September 2009. Date of knowledge : not stated. Date of application for grant of certified copies : 23rd November 2009. Date on which certified copies was received : 30th November 2009. Shrikant Malani 903.APPLN.9542.2022 Date on which the proposal was forwarded to the divisional office on receipt of opinion by lawyer : 12th November 2010. Date on which the divisional office has forwarded proposal for getting legal opinion regarding filing appeal : 31st January 2011. Date on which legal opinion was received : 27th January 2015. Date on which the panel advocate was contacted for filing of appeal : 09th March 2015. Date on which the advocate informed about the court fees : 30th April 2015. Date on which court fee was received : 29th September 2017. Date on which the appeal was filed : 24th January 2020.” 5. The aforesaid dates would reveal that though the judgment was passed in the year 2009, the certified copies was applied after two months and thereafter, opinion was sought in the month of November 2010 i.e. almost after one year. After forwarding the proposal for getting legal opinion in the year 2011, opinion was obtained after a period of four years i.e. 27th January 2015. Though panel advocate has informed about the court fees on 30th April 2015, it is after a period of more than two years, the court fees was made available in Shrikant Malani 903.APPLN.9542.2022 the year 2017. In spite of the court fees being made available in the year 2017, the appeal was filed in the year 2020. It is thus crystal clear that length of delay is not properly explained by the appellant. It is further pertinent to mention here that the averments in the application nowhere discloses that the delay caused was bona fide or unintentional. By lapse of more than nine years, the rights are already crystallized in favour of the claimant. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to allow the application. 6. Accordingly, Civil Application No. 9543 of 2022, Civil Application No. 9559 of 2022, Civil Application No. 9557 of 2022, Civil Application No. 9555 of 2022, Civil Application No. 9553 of 2022, Civil Application No. 9551 of 2022. Civil Application No. 9545 of 2022, Civil Application No. 9547 of 2022 and Civil Application No. 9549 of 2022 filed for condonation of delay are dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. ) Shrikant Malani