964 CA 11681 25.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 964 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11681 OF 2025 IN FAST/29212/2025 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11680 OF 2025 IN FAST/29219/2025 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11682 OF 2025 IN FAST/29217/2025 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11683 OF 2025 IN FAST/29215/2025 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11679 OF 2025 IN FAST/29155/2025 ANANDA DADABA PAWAR AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE DIST COLLECTOR BEED AND ANOTHER. ... Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Shinde C. K. AGP for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. C. V. Bhadane Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. S. R. Shirsat ... CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATE : 02.07.2026 PER COURT : By these applications, the applicants seek to condone delay of 97 days caused in filing appeal under Section 74(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 2013’). The office note indicate that the present appeals are not maintainable as those are filed beyond 120 days and there is no provision to condone the delay. 1/3 964 CA 11681 25.odt 2. Learned advocate Mr. Shinde appearing for the applicants relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner & Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. M/s. S. V. Global Mill Limited; reported in AIR 2026 Supreme Court 1129, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that: “77. As Section 74 of the 2013 Act does not exclude the application of Sections 4 to 24 of the 1963 Act, a limited interpretation of Section 5 of the 1963 Act alone cannot be given. What applies to exclusion shall apply to extension as well. In our considered view, the High Court, while exercising the power Under Section 74 of the 2013 Act, is certainly entitled to draw its power from the sources available under the 1963 Act. We cannot introduce words that are not available in Section 74 through an imaginary interpretation in holding the existence of an express exclusion. It is a conscious decision made by the Legislature, and its knowledge must be inferred and implied. Thus, we are inclined to hold that there is not much difference between the main provision contained in Section 74(1) and its proviso. There is only one period mentioned for filing the appeal, meaning thereby that the other one mentioned under the proviso gets subsumed within the period provided Under Section 74(1).” 3. Having considered the aforesaid exposition of law, this Court finds that the applications for delay condonation deserve consideration. Hence, for the reasons stated in the applications. Case is made out to exercise power under Section 5 of the Act of 2013. 4. In the result, the applications are allowed. Delay of 97 days caused in filing appeals is condoned. Civil Applications are disposed of. 5. Appeals be registered subject to removal of the office objections. After registration of the appeals list the appeals for further consideration on 30.07.2026. 2/3 964 CA 11681 25.odt 6. Call for record and proceedings. 7. Parties to take note that the appeals may be heard finally at the stage of admission. ( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.) mkd/- 3/3