Gujarat High Court
Nathabhai Dayabhai Expired vs State Of Gujarat on 1 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/6211/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 6211 of
2024
In F/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 35756 of 2024
==========================================================
NATHABHAI DAYABHAI EXPIRED & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KRUSHNAKANT D PATEL(10632) for the Applicant(s) No.
1,10,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MR TEJAS P SATTA(3149) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,10,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MR.RAHUL DAVE AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 01/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. This is an application, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of 817 days caused in preferring the restoration application.
2. Heard learned advocate Tejas Satta for the applicants and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. Learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that due to non-removal of office objections, Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:22:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/6211/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined the matter was dismissed for non-removal of office objections. It is further submitted that applicant has no legal knowledge and does not understand the intricacies of law. It is further submitted that applicants have good case on merits as well as on law. It is further submitted that applicants are now ready and willing to remove all office objections within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is further submitted that delay may be condoned as there is no intentional delay on the part of the applicants. Learned advocate for the applicants 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 considering the law laid down in aforementioned case, the applicants are not claiming their right for the interest upon the enhanced compensation, if any, for the delay period.
4. Learned AGP while opposing this application, would submit that delay is not sufficiently explained Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:22:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/6211/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined and therefore, present application may be dismissed.
5. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the documents on record and also perused the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs. Mrs. Katji and Ors. reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
"1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.
2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.
3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.
4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:22:57 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/6211/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined
5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.
6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so."
6. With profit, I may also refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Dhiraj Singh (Dead) Through Legal Heirs Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. reported in 2014 (14) SCC 127, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed thus:-
"we can take judicial notice of the fact that villagers in our country are by and large illiterate and are not conversant with the intricacies of law. They are usually guided by their covillagers, who are familiar with the proceedings in the Courts or the advocates with whom they get in touch for redressal of their grievance. Affidavits filed in support of the applications for condonation of delay are usually drafted by the advocates on the basis of half baked information made available by the affected persons. Therefore, in the acquisition matters involving claim for award of just compensation, the Court should adopt a liberal approach and either grant time to the party to file better affidavit to explain delay or suo motu take Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:22:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/6211/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined cognizance of the fact that large number of other similarly situated persons who were affected by the determination of compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer, or the Reference Court have been granted relief." In Samiyathal v. Tahsildar decided on 5-7- 2013, this Court took cognizance of the fact that many landowners may not have been able to seek intervention of this Court for grant of enhanced compensation due to illiteracy, poverty and ignorance and issued direction that those who have not filed special leave petition should be given enhanced compensation."
7. 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 in preferring restoration application deserves consideration subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/-. However, the claimant/s would not be entitled to claim interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, if any, during the delay period. Resultantly, delay is condoned subject to deposit the amount of Rs.5,000/- before the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority, within a period of 10 Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:22:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/6211/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
8. Accordingly, present Civil Application stands disposed of.
(D. M. DESAI,J) MANOJ Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 01:22:57 IST 2025