Gujarat High Court
Nirubhai Bhurabhai vs Special Land Acquisition Officer ... on 4 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4468/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4468 of
2024
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 22158 of 2024
==========================================================
NIRUBHAI BHURABHAI
Versus
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (NARMADA YOJNA) & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NITIN M AMIN(126) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS DEVANSHI PATEL for the Respondent(s) No. 1 & 3
NILAY H PATEL(7856) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 04/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The application is filed for condonation of delay of 772 days in filing the appeal.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Nitin M. Amin for the applicant and learned advocate Mr. Nilay H patel for respondent no. 2 and learned AGP for respondent no. 1 and 3.
Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by MS.PARUL DUTTA(HCD0073) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 21:48:07 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4468/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined
3. Learned advocate for the applicant further submitted that applicant was original claimant who has challenged the judgment and award dated 21.03.2020 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge at Botad in New LRC No. 110 of 2019. It is contended that the possession of the land was taken in July, 2010. After taking possession for nearly about 12 years the compensation was not paid to the claimants. Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation as the compensation on lower side, claimants challenged the same before learned Land Reference Court. Learned Land Reference Court passed an award on 21.03.2020. However, For want of necessary court fees, the claimant/applicant could not challenged the judgment and award of Ld. Reference Court. It is further contended that the other claimants of the same group filed Civil Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by MS.PARUL DUTTA(HCD0073) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 21:48:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4468/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined Application (For Condonation of Delay) No. 4213 of 2024 and allied matters wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 27.11.2024 condoned the delay and notices have been issued for final hearing. It is contended that applicants shall not claim interest on enhanced compensation, if any, awarded by this Court. No other submissions are made except the above.
4. Learned AGP for respondent nos.1 and 3 contended that poverty is not a sufficient cause for condoning the delay. It is further contended that no sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay and therefore, prays for rejection of the application.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Nilay H. Patel for respondent no.2 contended that grounds mentioned in the application are not sufficient for condoning delay. Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by MS.PARUL DUTTA(HCD0073) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 21:48:07 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4468/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined It is submitted that as per the contention raised in the additional affidavit, dated 30.08.2024, indicates that the compensation was deposited by the acquiring body on 19.01.2023 and the amount of compensation was disbursed in favour of the claimants on 04.07.2023. However, in para-6 of the affidavit, the claimants are raising a contention that a mistake/error in calculation of compensation was brought to the notice of the learned Reference Court but the Reference Court orally refused to correct, such mistake. Such is not a ground whereby the claimants can claim sufficient cause. It is contended that no copy of the application for seeking correction in the calculation is placed on record and no particulars are mentioned in the affidavit as to when the application came to be tendered before the learned Reference Court. In support of the contention Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by MS.PARUL DUTTA(HCD0073) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 21:48:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4468/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined learned advocate for respondent has placed reliance upon H. Guruswamy & ORS. Versus A. Krishnaiah Since Deceased By LRS. reported in 2025 INSC 53 and contended that Hon'ble Apex Court while deciding an application for condonation of delay, has held that when a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long period of time, under such circumstances, the delay may not be condoned. No other are made except the above.
6. I have considered submissions canvassed by learned advocates for the parties and perused the application and the affidavit dated 30.08.2024. At the outset, it would be profitable to reproduce the application for condonation of delay of para-1, 3 and 4:
Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by MS.PARUL DUTTA(HCD0073) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 21:48:07 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4468/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined
1. The applicant herein has filed the above First Appeal challenging the judgment, award and decree dated 21/03/2020 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Botad in LRC No. 110/19.
3. It is respectfully submitted that the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v/s Mst. Katiji and others, reported at AIR 1987 SUPREME COURT 1353 has held that for condoning delay, liberal approach be adopted on principle.
In the case of S. Ganesharaju (D) Thr. L.Rs. & Another v/s Narasamma (D) Thr. L.Rs. & Others reported at 2012 (4) SCALE 152 has held, "The expression 'sufficient cause' has to be given liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice... Unless respondents are able to show malafide in not approaching the Court within limitation, generally as a normal rule delay should be condoned."
4. There is no fault on the part of the applicant. There is no culpable negligence on the part of the applicant in not preferring the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. The circumstances stated herein above were beyond the control of the applicant. The applicant has very good case on merits and there are all chances to succeed in the appeal. It is submitted that if the delay in filing the appeal is not condoned, then there would be a great prejudice to the applicant. On the other hand, if the delay is condoned and the above captioned appeal is heard on its merits, then there would not be any prejudice to any party.
It appears from the application that the claimants are trying to show sufficient cause for condoning the delay by stating a fact that possession of land was acquired in July, 2010 and the claimants did not receive compensation for 12 years. Undisputably, the impugned judgment and award is Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by MS.PARUL DUTTA(HCD0073) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 21:48:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4468/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined passed on 21.03.2020. If the record is perused the certified copy of the judgment and award was applied by the claimants on 28.09.2020 and it was received by the claimants on 30.10.2020. It appears that in the application for condonation of delay, no explanation is canvassed explaining the period between 30.10.2020 till filing of the present application i.e. 03.08.2024. If the affidavit dated 30.08.2024 is perused, the claimants are stating that the compensation was deposited by the acquiring body on 19.01.2023 and thereafter, it was disbursed on 04.07.2023. After the receipt of the compensation on 04.07.2023 the applicant remained idle and filed the appeal on 03.08.2024 with an application for condonation of delay. There is no worthwhile explanation for the gap between the date of receipt of the compensation and the date of filing the appeal. Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by MS.PARUL DUTTA(HCD0073) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 21:48:07 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4468/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined Undisputably, the claimant was having certified copy of the impugned order in the year, 2020. The ground of shortage of funds could have been taken care of by resorting to the provisions contained in Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said provision contemplates that when a litigant who is having financial difficulty for paying necessary court fees can resort to the Order 33 of CPC and file the proceedings as an indigent person. However, in the present case the applicant did receive the compensation in 2023 but opted to remain as a fence-sitter and watch the outcome of the application for condonation of delay filed by other claimants. In the case of H. Guruswamy & ORS (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court in para no.-16 has observed as under:
16. The length of the delay is definitely a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the respondents herein, it appears that they want to Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by MS.PARUL DUTTA(HCD0073) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 21:48:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4468/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined fix their own period of limitation for the purpose of instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation.
Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay.
In the case of The State of Gujarat & 2 versus Dahayabhai Nyalchand Vora reported in 2014 SCC Online Guj 6805, the Hon'ble Apex Court in para no.- 6.2 has observed as under:
6.2 It may be true that in a given or special case, late applying of certified copy may have good reason to be condoned. But, ordinarily and in all normal cases, the act of applying certified copy immediately or at least within the period of limitation after deliverance of the judgment proposed to be challenged, is an important measure of litigant's vigilance. It is also a reflection of intention to carry the case in appeal and agitate for his rights. This much amount of vigilance is expected, whether it is a private individual or a government department. Therefore, without making a rule of thumb, it can be safely stated that when the certified copy is not applied within the period of limitation, it suggests apathy and negligence on part of the litigant. In the present case, there is no explanation for time gap between 14th October, 2011 and 21st April, 2012. Given this conduct of not applying the certified copy till the papers reached the office of the Government Pleader at High Court, the explanation about time taken in Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by MS.PARUL DUTTA(HCD0073) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 21:48:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4468/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined exhausting different decisional stages turned out to be the lame excuse, judicially not acceptable. Mere movement of files from one table to another and the stock ground of administrative procedure cannot furnish a good cause and a sufficient cause in all cases, unless the time consumed in the decision making process is shown to be bonafide.
7. In the present case it appears that the claimants remained negligent and opted not to challenge the impugned judgment and award for considerable period of time. Considering the conduct of the applicant and more particularly the explanations which have been tried to be canvassed by the applicant are not the sufficient causes whereby delay of 772 days can be condoned. As no case is made out by the applicant for condonation of delay, the application stands rejected. No order as to costs.
(D. M. DESAI,J) PD Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by MS.PARUL DUTTA(HCD0073) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 21:48:07 IST 2025