SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 1 Saturday, July 12, 2025
Printed For: Ms Shweta Bharti
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020 SCC OnLine Bom 10739
†
In the High Court of Bombay
(BEFORE A.S. CHANDURKAR AND N.B. SURYAWANSHI, JJ.)
Executive Engineer, Amravati Project Construction
Division Amravati and Another
Versus
Rajendra Anantprasad Ganeriwal and Another
C.A.F. Nos. 1206/2020 and 1500/2020 in First Appeal 386/2O20
Decided on December 15, 2020
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mra. Anjali A. Joshi, counsel for the appellant.
Shri Arun A. Agrawal, counsel for the R-1.
1. By this application, the applicants pray that the delay in
preferring appeal under Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 (for short, ‘the said Act’) be condoned. The learned Presiding
Officer Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Nagpur decided the
acquisition proceedings in which the lands owned by the non-applicant
no. 1 came to be acquired by order dated 04.11.2019. As per provisions
of Section 74(1) of the said Act, an appeal is required to be filed within
a period of sixty days from the date of the award. As per the proviso to
Section 74(1) delay of a period not exceeding sixty days thereafter is
liable to be condoned subject to sufficient cause being assigned.
2. According to the applicants appeal under Section 74(1) of the said
Act was filed on 18.02.2020. Since according to non-applicant no. 1 the
appeal was filed beyond the period of sixty days as permitted and the
appeal was not accompanied by any application for condonation of
delay, it had moved Civil Application No. 1206 of 2020 for dismissal of
First Appeal No. 386 of 2020 on that count. By the order dated
03.11.2020, it has been held that even though the appeal was filed
beyond the period of sixty days as stipulated by Section 74(1) of the
said Act, an opportunity was liable to be given to the applicants to seek
condonation of delay. In the application for condonation of delay, it has
been stated that after getting knowledge of order being passed by the
learned Presiding Officer on 04.11.2019 steps were taken to obtain
legal opinion. The Certified Copy of the order that was applied for on
22.11.2019 was received on 07.01.2020. After deducting 42 copying
days, it was clear that the appeal was filed within the prescribed period
of limitation of sixty days and if the copying days were not taken into
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Saturday, July 12, 2025
Printed For: Ms Shweta Bharti
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
th
account the appeal was filed on the 105 day from the date of
adjudication of the proceedings by the Presiding Officer. The learned
counsel for the applicants submitted that the reply filed to Civil
Application No. 1206 of 2020 be also taken into consideration while
considering the prayer for condonation of delay. She referred to the
documents placed on record to urge that the Office of the Executive
Engineer, Minor Irrigation had been wrongly impleaded in the array of
parties. In fact, the Executive Engineer, Amravati Project Construction
Construction Division Amravati ought to have been impleaded. It was
submitted the delay as caused was not intentional and the same was
liable to be condoned in the interest of justice.
3. The learned counsel for the non-applicant no. 1 vehemently
opposed the aforesaid application. According to him, the explanation
furnished was not sufficient to condone the delay. Referring to
provisions of Section 60(5) of the said Act, he submitted that the
Competent Authority was required to deliver a copy of the order as
passed to the parties within fifteen days. In view of the fact that
applicants had knowledge of the aforesaid order on
06.11.2019/19.11.2019 they ought to have filed appeal immediately
thereafter. There was no explanation furnished as to why the appeal
was filed on 18.02.2020. He referred to the documents filed along with
the reply to urge that though the certified copy was ready on
02.12.2019, it was collected by the counsel for the applicants only on
07.01.2020. Placing reliance on the decision in Special Land Acquisition
Officer (SIP) v. Jose Prazeres De Piedade Pinto r/o Old Market [(2006) 4
Mah LJ 318], he submitted that in absence that any proper explanation
for the period of delay the same was not liable to be condoned. He
therefore submitted that the application was liable to be rejected.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the
Presiding Officer passed his award on 04.11.2019. It is a fact that the
applicants got knowledge of this order on 06.11.2019/19.11.2019. It
has however not been indicated that the Office of Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Authority had in terms of Section 60(5) of the said Act
delivered the certified copy of the award to the applicants. The
applicants even if served with a copy of the award could not have filed
an appeal without certified copy of the same. The applicants applied for
the certified copy on 22.11.2019 and the same was received on
07.01.2020. It is thereafter that the appeal was filed on 18.02.2020. As
it was not possible to present the appeal without a certified copy and
despite having knowledge of the award on 06.11.2019/19.11.2019, the
appeal was required to be filed along with the certified copy. We find
that though the appeal has been filed on 18.02.2020, there are no mala
fides on the part of the applicants resulting in the period of delay. In
fact, according to them, if the copying days from 22.11.2019 to
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 3 Saturday, July 12, 2025
Printed For: Ms Shweta Bharti
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
07.01.2020 are excluded the appeal was filed within a period of sixty
days as prescribed.
5. In that view of the matter, the ratio of the decision in Special
Land Acquisition Officer (supra) cannot be made applicable to the facts
of this case. Finding the reasons sufficient, we condone the delay in
filing the appeal subject to the applicants paying costs of Rupees Ten
Thousand to the non-applicant no. 1 within a period of three weeks.
Civil Application Nos. 1206 of 2020 and 1500 of 2020 are disposed of in
aforesaid terms.
———
†
Nagpur Bench
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/
regulation/ circular/ notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be
liable in any manner by reason of any mistake or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice
rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All
disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The authenticity of
this text must be verified from the original source.
