Advocates:
['KAKADE DEEPAK M', 'COPY SERVED ON GP', '', 'SHELKE SUNITA D', 'R/ SERVED', 'GP WAIVES OF R/ AND R']

1 920-10153-2021ca

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

920 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10153 OF 2021

IN FAST/23951/2016

DAGDU TUKARAM TAKE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

THROUGH THE COLLECTOR, JALNAAND OTHERS

Mr D.M. Kakade, Advocate for the applicant

Mr A.B. Chate, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2/State

CORAM : SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.

DATE : 3rd February 2022

PER COURT :

1.

It is an application moved by the applicant with three-fold prayers - (1)

for condonation of delay, (2) for setting aside the order passed by this Court

dated 19^th March, 2018, and (3) to restore the name of respondent No.3 in the

cause title of Appeal (Stamp) No. 23951/2016.

2.

Heard Mr Deepak Kakade, learned counsel for the applicant. He

submits that he could not supply the copies for service to respondent No.3 within

a stipulated period granted by the Court. Thus, failed to take effective steps

against respondent No. 3 and ultimately, appeal came to be dismissed against

respondent No. 3 for want of steps. He submitted that the participation of

respondent No.3/acquiring body is very much necessary to adjudicate the

appeal. He submits that it is necessary to condone the delay by looking to the

nature of dispute.

3.

Mr A.B. Chate, the learned AGP for respondent No. 1 and 2 strongly

opposed to allow this application. He submitted that the reasons assigned in this

2 920-10153-2021ca

application are neither cogent nor sufficient to allow the prayers. He submitted

that respondent No. 3 is the main contesting party, who is absent though duly

served and that aspect needs to be considered.

4.

It is evident from the record that respondent No. 3/acquiring body has

been duly served with notice. Even then, none present for respondent No. 3

when the matter is called out.

5.

There is no point in keeping this application by looking to the nature

of prayer.

6.

The applicant has preferred an appeal feeling aggrieved by the

impugned Judgment and Award passed by the reference Court. The question is

about enhancement of compensation in respect of land acquired. Certainly, the

participation of acquiring body/respondent No. 3 is very much necessary. The

appeal cannot be decided effectively in absence of respondent No.3/acquiring

body. As such, it is necessary to set aside the order passed by this Court dated

19th March, 2018 and to restore the name of respondent No.3 in the cause title

of the first appeal by condoning the delay which would meet the ends of justice.

ORDER

(i)

The application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B) to (D).

(ii)

The applicant to take necessary steps in respect of respondent No.3

within a period of four weeks.

(iii)

The civil application is accordingly disposed of.

( SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.)

mta