Gujarat High Court
Parshottambhai Gopalbhai Patel vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 28 November, 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1906/2023 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1906 of
2023
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 24072 of 2023
================================================================
PARSHOTTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI PATEL
Versus
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
================================================================
Appearance:
MR PADMRAJ K JADEJA(2095) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS FORAM U TRIVEDI, AGP ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO
GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 28/11/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 698 days in preferring the First Appeal.
2. Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Foram U. Trivedi appears on advance copy, waives the service of notice of Rule for respondent No.1.
3. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
4. Learned advocate for the applicant would submit that the present applicant is a poor person and he could not manage the necessary fees to file the appeal. In support of his submission, he has produced decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of K. Subbarayadu and others Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) reported in 2017(12) SCC 840 and would submit that Page 1 of 2 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 28 20:40:17 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/1906/2023 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2023 undefined considering the law laid down in aforementioned case, the applicant is not claiming his right for the interest upon the enhanced compensation, if any, for the delay period. It is further submitted that the delay is not intentional and there was no lethargy on the part of the applicant.
5. Per contra, there is an objection on the part of the learned AGP that the delay has not been sufficiently explained and therefore, present application may be dismissed.
6. Applying the ratio of aforestated judgment in background of the facts of the present case as well as considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of K. Subbarayadu (supra), the application seeking condonation of delay deserves consideration. However, the claimant would not be entitled to claim interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, if any, during the delay period.
7. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the delay has sufficiently been explained, therefore, this application is allowed subject to the condition that the applicant-claimant shall not be entitled to claim interest on the period of delay caused in preferring the First Appeal on enhanced amount of award, if any. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(D. M. DESAI,J) RINKU MALI Page 2 of 2 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 28 20:40:17 IST 2023