968-ca-11635-2025.odt (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11635 OF 2025 IN FAST/26814/2025 Hausabai Babasaheb Birangal (died) Ajinath Babasaheb Birangal And Other VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra Through The Collector, Beed And Another ... Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Shinde Chandrakant K. AGP for Respondent/State : Ms. R.R. Tandale Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. P.A. Pisal WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11644 OF 2025 IN FAST/27076/2025 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11646 OF 2025 IN FAST/27080/2025 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11642 OF 2025 IN FAST/27072/2025 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11639 OF 2025 IN FAST/27066/2025 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11640 OF 2025 IN FAST/27068/2025 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11636 OF 2025 IN FAST/27082/2025 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11641 OF 2025 IN FAST/27070/2025 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11637 OF 2025 IN FAST/27062/2025 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11638 OF 2025 IN FAST/27064/2025 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11645 OF 2025 IN FAST/27078/2025 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11643 OF 2025 IN FAST/27074/2025 ... CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : AUGUST 06, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. By these applications, applicants seek to condone delay of 129 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 present appeals are not maintainable as those are filed beyond 120 days and there is no provision to condone delay. 2026:BHC-AUG:34246 968-ca-11635-2025.odt (2) 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 aforesaid exposition of law, this Court finds that applications for delay condonation deserve consideration. Hence, for reasons stated in applications, case is made out to exercise power under Section 5 of Act of 2013. 4. In result, applications are allowed. Delay of 129 days caused in filing appeals is condoned. Civil Applications are disposed of. 5. Appeals be registered subject to removal of office objections. After registration of appeals, list appeals for further consideration on 03.09.2026. 968-ca-11635-2025.odt (3) 6. Call for record and proceedings. 7. Parties to take note that appeals may be heard finally at the stage of admission. (S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.) Mujaheed//