The main legal point established in the judgment is that unnecessary technical impediments should not be introduced by virtue of interpretative process, and procedural laws are primarily intended to achieve the ends of justice and not to shut the doors of justice for the parties at the threshold.

JUDGMENT

Anuja Prabhudessai, J. - In an appeal filed by the Acquiring Body under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the claimant in LAC No. 99/2010 (hereinafter to as the Cross-objector) has filed this cross-objection under Order XLI Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'C.P.C.') claiming enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,50,000/- per hectare with all other statutory benefits.

2. Heard Shri Purushottam Patil, learned counsel for the Appellants and Shri A.B. Nakshane, learned counsel for the Cross-objector. I have perused the record and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties.

3. The Cross-objector is the owner of the land under Gat No. 65/1 admeasuring 1.21 hectare situated at village Thalegaon, Tq. & Dist. Yavat-mal. The said land was acquired by the Appellants/Acquiring Body for Bembla River Project. The notification under Section 4 was published on 14.08.2003 and the award was declared on 09.06.2005. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 91,578/- per hectare. Being dissatisfied with the said compensation, the Cross-objector filed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

4. The Reference Court after considering the evidence on record, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1,75,000/-. The Appellants/Acquiring Body challenged the said judgment by filing an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, whereas the Cross-objector filed cross-objection claiming enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,50,000/- per hectare. The appeal filed by the Acquiring Body has been withdrawn. The only question for consideration is whether the Cross-objector is entitled for enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,50,000/- per hectare.

5. Learned counsel for the Cross-objector has placed on record copy of the judgment dated 1st September, 2021 in First Appeal No. 481/2016 and other group matters, whereunder this Court, (Coram: Pushpa V. Ganediwala, J.), has determined the compensation in respect of the land under Gat No. 30/02 at village Thalegaon at the rate of Rs. 2,10,000/- per hectare. Learned counsel for the Cross-objector states that the land which is the subject-matter of the First Appeal No. 481/2016 was of similar nature, situated in the same village and was acquired for the same purpose, by the same notification. On the basis of the said judgment, he submits that the Cross-objector is entitled for compensation of Rs. 2,10,000/- per hectare.

6. Shri Purushottam Patil, learned counsel for the Appellants/Acquiring Body submits that the cross-objection is filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation without filing an application for condonation of delay. He further submits that the Cross-objector is not entitled for interest during the delayed period.

7. I have perused the records and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties.

8. At the outset, it may be mentioned that Order XLI rule 22 of C.P.C. permits filing of cross-objection within a period of one month from the date of service of notice. The said Rule 22 also gives discretion to the Court to permit filing of cross-objection beyond the period of 30 days. In the case of V.I.D.C. Vs. Kawadu Narayan Tandulkar & Ors. reported in 2017 (6) Mh.L.J. 780, learned Single Judge of this Court has held that the period of one month contemplated under Order XLI Rule 22(1) of the C.P.C. must be calculated from the date of service of the notice upon the Cross-objector of final hearing of the appeal. Pursuant to the referral order of the learned Single Judge, in the case of Vasant Builders & Anr. Vs. Mohan Narayan Patwardhan in Writ Petition No. 5099/2018 on 22nd December, 2020, the Division Bench of this Court has held that V.I.D.C. (supra) does not lay down the correct position of law. It is held that the limitation for filing of the cross-objection under Order XLI Rule 22 of the C.P.C. commences/starts/triggers from the date on w