12-CA.649 of 2019.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 649 OF 2019 IN FAST/34252/2018 Ravan Satappa More VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Anr. ---- Mr.V.V.Ingle, Advocate for applicant Mr.S.P.Sonpavale, AGP for respondents ---- CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 15, 2026 ORDER :- Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 11.08.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Omerga, in Land Acquisition Reference No.25 of 2008 (New)/158 of 2002 (Old), the appellant has filed First Appeal for enhancement. The present civil application is for condonation of delay of 2549 days in filing the First Appeal. 2. The applicants/appellants submit that their source of earning and livelihood has been taken away due to compulsory acquisition of his property. That, very meager amount was awarded to the applicants by the Competent Authority. That even, the learned Reference Court has also not granted adequate enhancement to the 2026:BHC-AUG:42809 2 12-CA.649 of 2019 applicants. Hence, present First Appeal is filed by the applicants. However, due to lack of legal knowledge, general awareness of the proceedings and poor financial conditions despite a wish to get enhanced compensation, they could not approach for legal advise, nor could they file the present appeal well within limitation or at the earliest thereafter. With this, the applicants seek condonation of delay caused in filing present appeal. 3. Per contra, learned AGP for the respondents opposes condonation of the delay, contending that the application and appeal are filed afterthought and they are filed with sole object to earn more money on sympathy. 4. Upon having heard the parties, I am of the considered view that enhancement by way of First Appeal is a statutory right of claimant. The farmers, whose agricultural land has been acquired, must get adequate opportunity to claim for adequate and proportionate enhancement in the compensation. For that, technicality of delay must not be a hurdle. 5. Profitable reference can be made to the judgment and order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and ors., (Civil Appeal arising out of (C) No.670/2020) and connected matters decided on 23.04.2025. 3 12-CA.649 of 2019 Their Lordships, after considering series of judgments, have observed in paragraph 11, as follows :- “11. In all judgments referred supra, the common thread that can be observed is that delay is not a reason to deny the land losers their compensation, which is just, fair and reasonable for the land they have lost.” 6. Thus, for the reasons stated above, I am inclined to condone the delay, caused in filing the First Appeal. Hence, following order : O R D E R a. Delay of 2549 days, caused in filing First Appeal is hereby condoned. b. Civil Application stands allowed. c. Applicants shall not claim any benefit or statutory interest for the delayed period. d. Registry to register the appeal. 7. On registration of the appeal, issue notice to the respondents. Learned AGP waives service of notice for the respondents. 4 12-CA.649 of 2019 In First Appeal Stamp No.34252 of 2018:- 8. In appeal, learned learned advocate for the appellants and learned AGP for the respondents. 9. Mr.V.V.Ingle, learned advocate for the appellants would cite order dated 13.07.2026 passed by this court in First Appeal No.388 of 2019 (Vinita Govindrao Purne Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.) and order dated 15.06.2026 passed by this Court in First Appeal No.12 of 2018 (Parvati Mahadeo Survase Vs. State of Maharashtra), wherein this court has defined the entitlement of the appellants therein at the rate of Rs.20 per sq. ft. for the acquired land. He submits that the cited orders arise out of the same land acquisition proceedings which is the subject-matter of the present appeal. He would further submit that the First Appeal No.388 of 2019 arise out of L.A.R. No.601 of 2005 which was decided vide common judgment and order in the present matter. Thus, he submits that the First Appeal may be partly allowed holding the appellants for compensation at the rate of Rs.20 per sq. ft. 10. Mr.Sonpavale, learned AGP on instructions submits that indeed this court has passed order in the connected matters wherein the entitlement is held at Rs.20 per sq. ft., as contended by 5 12-CA.649 of 2019 Mr.Ingale, learned advocate for the appellants. Further, learned AGP submits that the appeal may be partly allowed holding the appellants entitled for compensation at the rate Rs.20/- per sq. ft. 11. In view of the above, I pass following order:- A. The appeals are partly allowed. The appellants are entitled for compensation at Rs.20/- per sq. ft. (Rs.20,000/- per R) for the acquired land. B. The appellants shall be entitled to interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act from the date of final award as per the judgment in the State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari, 2016(4) All M.R. 513. C. Save and except above modification, the impugned judgment and award shall stand unaltered. D. The appellants shall not be entitled to receive interest and statutory benefits for the delayed period. E. The appellants shall pay the deficit court fee F. The respondent/acquiring body shall deposit the enhanced compensation in this court within six months from today. Any amount already paid/deposited shall be adjusted. 6 12-CA.649 of 2019 G. The deposit shall carry updated interest. H. If such amount is deposited, the appellants shall be at liberty to withdraw the same without filing separate Civil Application. [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.] ……….. KBP