1 26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6970 OF 2022 IN FAST/12495/2022 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER IRRIGATION PROJECT MAJBUTIKARANN DIVISION OSMANABAD VERSUS DHENU LALU RATHOD ... Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Mukul Kulkarni AGP for Respondent/s – State : Mr. V.K. Kotecha ... CORAM : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. DATE : 02ND FEBRUARY, 2026 PER COURT : 1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 2789 days in filing an appeal by acquiring body the challenging the judgment and award passed by the reference Court. 2. In order to appreciate the controversy in its proper perspective, the pleadings made in application are reproduced herein below : “2. The applicant says and submits that, the judgment and award is dated 7-4-2014. The applicant is working under the Krishna Khore Development Corporation Pune. The applicant applied for certified copy on 9-4-2014. The application was completed on 15-5-2014 and the certified copy was delivered on 26- 5-2014. 3. The applicant says and submits that, the applicant is a Corporation established by the State Government. Therefore, the applicant is required to get sanction of funds from the Government. Unless there is sanctioned amount from the Government, the applicant is unable to file first appeal. The applicant 2026:BHC-AUG:4842 2 26.odt demanded sanction of funds for payment of court fees and for incidental expenses to the Government for filing first appeals. After getting sanction from the Government, the applicant sent the cheque to the Advocate at Aurangabad. As there are connected first appeals, Civil Applications for delay condonation and Civil Applications for stay are also prepared. Hence some time was required for preparation of the matter. Therefore, some delay is caused. The same is not intentional one. Hence the same is required to be condoned. 4. The applicant says and submits that, the matter is in respect of compensation amount for acquisition of land. The Land Acquisition Officer has awarded proper, just and adequate compensation to the claimants as per the prevailing market price. The learned Reference Court without there being any proper evidence on record awarded enhanced compensation to the claimants along with 9% and 15% interest from the date of possession which is highly excessive and against the provisions of law. The applicant has every hope for succeed in first appeal. Therefore, it is just, proper and in the interest of justice to condone the delay caused in filing first appeal and the first appeal may kindly be heard on its merits. 5. The applicant further says and submits that, arising out of the same acquisition proceedings, several other land acquisition references were decided by the learned Reference Court and against the said judgments and awards the acquiring body has filed first appeals in this Hon’ble High Court and the same are pending consideration before this Hon’ble High Court. In the light of this also, it is just and proper to condone the delay caused in filing the present first appeal.” 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that challenging the award from the same acquisition, first appeals are filed before this Court in which delay is condoned. He has relied upon order dated 3 26.odt 29.09.2021, passed in Civil Application No. 10303/2021 in First Appeal Stamp No. 22480/2021, so also order dated 10.10.2023, passed in Civil Application No. 10704/2023 in First Appeal No. 23552/2022. 4. I have gone through the said orders. While deciding the issue, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court discussed in the several cases which are mentioned in this order is not taken into consideration. Further nothing has been brought on record to show that what were the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay. In that view of the matter, I do not think that the argument will help the applicant. 5. Perusal of the application would reveal that the judgment and award was passed by the reference Court on 07.04.2014 and the certified copy was applied on 09.04.2014, which was delivered on 26.05.2014. After 2024 more particularly on 26.05.2024, no date is shown to test what was the date from which the limitation started. No dates are shown in order to decide the delay application. The application for a certified copy was made on 09.04.2014, which confirms that the date of knowledge was 09.04.2014. The application for condonation of delay was filed on 10.04.2022. For explaining the delay from the month of April, 2014, till the month of April, 2022, it is stated that the applicant is a corporation established by the State Government and, therefore, required to get sanction of funds from government. 6. It was stated that the demand for funds for payment of Court fees and incidental expenses to the government was made and after getting the sanction from the government the cheque was issued. It is 4 26.odt necessary to note that absolutely no dates are given in application to substantiate the contention. Just because the applicant/appellant is acquiring body, no special treatment can be given to it. The limitation Act is secular in nature. The length of delay may not be relevant if sufficient cause is shown. 7. Perusal of averments made in the application would reveal that there are no allegations against a particular officer stating that he has acted deliberately or in a mala fide manner to help the claimant, and therefore, the delay is occasioned. No doubt in appropriate cases, the liberal approach can be taken, but the fact remains that there is no material to adopt the said course. 8. Coming to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Ors. Vs. Katiji and Ors. (in Civil Appeal No.460 of 1987 dated 19th February 1987). The ratio therein cannot be disputed at all. The Court cannot be hyper- technical and ask the party to explain every day's delay, or every hour's or every second's delay. What is required is a common-sense, pragmatic approach. 9. A pragmatic manner would mean that whether the reasons made would appeal to the man of ordinary and focus on real-world consequences. As already discussed in view of the absence of a specific reason or date of knowledge, the liberal approach cannot be adopted. 10. So far as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of G. Ramegowda and Ors. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, 5 26.odt Bangalore (Civil Appeals Nos. 856, 857 and 899 (N) of 1974 dated 10th March 1988), suffice it to say that, in that case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has taken into consideration that if there is some deliberate omission on the part of the officers or some intentional default, then the benefit can be given to the government authorities and in that background, the delay was condoned. It was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No.8, “having regard to the entirety of the circumstances, the High Court thought that the State should not be penalized for the lapses of some of its officers and that in the particular circumstances there were sufficient grounds justifying the condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It was a matter for the discretion of the High Court. We are unable to say that the discretion was improperly exercised.” 11. Thus, it can be said that the delay can be condoned if it is shown by way of material that some officer has deliberately acted, so that the appeal could not be filed within a particular period. 12. The learned counsel for the applicant also relied upon the judgment of Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) through L.Rs. and Ors Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (decided on 09 th October 2023 by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5867 of 2015), and contended that there is a difference between the explanation and excuse. He has relied on paragraph No. 29. 13. Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has stated that the Court must distinguish between an explanation and an excuse. An explanation is designed to give someone all of the facts and lay out the cause for something. It helps clarify the circumstances of a particular 6 26.odt event. It allows the person to point out that something that has happened is not his fault, if it really isn't. Care must, however, be taken to distinguish an explanation from an excuse. A person often offers an excuse to deny responsibility and consequences when under attack. 14. Keeping in mind the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court, suffice it to say that all the facts are not brought to the notice of this Court to test whether the pleadings can be called as “explanation” or an “excuse”. 15. In the case of Executive Officer, Antiyur Town Panchayat Vs. G. Arumugam, (decided on 19 th January 2025 by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.8577 of 2013), the officer of the government authority required to file an appeal was suspended on allegations of corruption. In that background, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that there were deliberate lapses on the part of the executive officer of the Panchayat, and accordingly, the delay was condoned. 16. In the case in hand, it is not even the case of the applicants/acquiring body that any of the officers has either played mischief or has acted in a mala fide manner. 17. It is pertinent to mention here that merely because some person has obtained similar relief, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit, unless material to extend parity is produced on record. 18. So far as the contention of the learned counsel that there is a 7 26.odt substantial difference between the rate awarded by the SLAO and the rate granted by the Reference Court, suffice it to say that the merits of the case are not required to be considered while deciding an application for condonation of delay. This Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Jasodabai T. Mate and Others , 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 6528, have dealt with the point regarding condonation of delay in the appeal preferred by the acquiring body. Discussing various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble High Court, the Court finally observed that the State is not expected to be negligent or to take no action for years and let the matters become time-barred on account of its negligence and inaction. The usual reasons of "official hassle" or "approval at different levels" are hardly sufficient to justify condonation of the delay. It was further observed that, since in law, advantage has accrued to the non-applicants claimants and the same cannot be withdrawn mechanically and that too without any sufficient cause being shown by the appellants, delay can not be condoned. 19. Discussing the issue of condonation of delay from several angles, ultimately, the application for condonation of delay of 589 days was rejected by the Court. 20. It is in this background that I come to the conclusion that no sufficient reason is made out for condoning the delay, and therefore, the delay cannot be condoned. 21. Hence, the application is rejected. 8 26.odt ( RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. ) SPC