Gujarat High Court
Thakor Sardarji Jesangji vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 27 February, 2025
Author: Sangeeta K. Vishen
Bench: Sangeeta K. Vishen
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/163/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 163 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 31367 of 2024
==========================================================
THAKOR SARDARJI JESANGJI & ORS.
Versus
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES
for the Applicant(s) No. 8.1,8.2
MR ANKUR KIRI ADVOCATE FOR MR AV PRAJAPATI(672) for the
Applicant(s) No.
1,10,11,2,3,3.1,3.2,3.2.1,3.2.2,3.2.3,3.2.4,3.3,3.4,3.5,3.6,4,5,6,7,8,8.1.1,8.1.2,
8.1.3,8.1.4,8.1.5,8.1.6,8.1.7,8.2.1,8.2.2,8.2.3,8.3,8.4,8.5,9,9.1,9.2,9.3,9.4,9.5,
9.6
MS FORAM TRIVEDI AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
Date : 27/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN) [1] Captioned application has been filed with a prayer to condone the delay of 2790 days caused in preferring the captioned F/First Appeal No.31367 of 2024, whereby the challenge is to the judgment dated 9th December 2016 passed by the learned 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mahesana in Land Acquisition References namely LAR Cases Nos.1165 to 1187 of 2011.
[2] Mr. Ankur Kiri, learned advocate appearing for Mr. Ashok Prajapati, learned advocate for the applicants submitted that Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Fri Feb 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 01 00:38:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/163/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2025 undefined the captioned appeal is arising out of the judgment dated 9 th December 2016 passed in LAR Case No.1171 of 2015. In the Land Acquisition Reference Case No.1169 of 2011, the claimants, being aggrieved, have challenged the judgment by filing First Appeal, wherein also, there was a delay of 2790 days and this Court has been kind enough to condone it accepting the explanation offered. It is submitted that the claimants are ready and willing to waive interest for the delayed period if this Court were to enhance the amount of compensation.
[3] Reliance is placed on the judgments in the case of K. Subbarayudu and others vs. Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) reported in 2017 (12) SCC 840 and in the case of Ningappa Thotappa Angadi Dead Through Lrs. vs. The Special land Acquisition Officer and Another reported in (2020) 19 SCC 599. Request is made to condone the delay by passing similar order.
[4] Ms. Foram Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents could not dispute the same and request is made to pass appropriate order.
[5] The application, as stated hereinabove, has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 2790 days caused in preferring the captioned first appeal. It is not in dispute that the original claimants are semi-illiterate and comes from a village of District Mehsana. With insufficient means, they could not take any steps. Also, some of the claimants have passed away. Steps were taken for Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Fri Feb 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 01 00:38:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/163/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2025 undefined bringing the heirs on the record. It is thereafter, that appeal could be filed. Other claimants so also the Special Land Acquisition Officer have challenged the impugned judgment by way of First Appeal no.475 of 2019 and First Appeal no.2819 of 2017 respectively and are admitted.
[6] In the case of Ningappa Thotappa Angadi Dead Through Lrs. vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer & Another (supra), the Apex Court, has held and observed that if the claimants are identically situated, there is no reason to meet out a different treatment to them. It has been held and observed that if there is a huge delay, equities can be balanced by denying the claimants interest for the period for which they did not approach the Court. The substantive rights of the appellants should not be allowed to be defeated on technical grounds by taking hypertechnical view of self-imposed limitations. In the matter of compensation for land acquisition, the approach of the Court has to be pragmatic and not pedantic. Paragraphs 8 to 11 are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference.
"8. We find that the issue raised in this appeal is no longer res-integra. This Court in Dhiraj Singh (Dead) through LRs. and Others v. State of Haryana and Others held that:
"14. The appellants are identically situated and there is no reason to meet out a different treatment to them. We also note that, while in these cases, the High Court had refused to condone the delay and dismissed the LPAs of the appellants, other LPAs were allowed by the High Court itself by condoning the delay of the same Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Fri Feb 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 01 00:38:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/163/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2025 undefined magnitude in the same circumstances.
15. Equities can be balanced by denying the appellants' interest for the period for which they did not approach the Court. The substantive rights of the appellants should not be allowed to be defeated on technical grounds by taking hypertechnical view of self-imposed limitations. In the matter of compensation for land acquisition, we are of the view that approach of the Court has to be pragmatic and not pedantic. [Emphasis applied]
9. The afore-cited view has been consistently followed by this Court in a series of cases before and after the decision in Dhiraj Singh's (dead) case (supra). In Imrat Lal & Ors. v. Land Acquisition Collector & Ors. 2, 1(2014) 14 SCC 127 2 2014 14 SCC 133 it was observed that the delay in filing the Special Leave Petition cannot be the reason to deny just and fair compensation to the claimants. This Court observed that a liberal approach should be adopted in such like matters. In Huchanagouda v. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer also this Court condoned the delay and restored parity in the matter of grant of compensation though with a condition "that for the period of delay in filing and in refiling the Special Leave Petitions, the appellant-claimant(s) shall not be entitled to any interest on the enhanced compensation and statutory amount."
10. It is undeniable that this Court vide judgment dated November 11, 2016 passed in C.A. No. 2927/2010 (Ningappa Thotappa Angadi v. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr.) has set aside the order of the High Court and restored the compensation as was awarded by the Reference Court. In the cited case, this Court held as follows:
"We have heard the learned counsel for the parties to some length and carefully perused the material on record. We are of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment and order of the High Court Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Fri Feb 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 01 00:38:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/163/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2025 undefined deserves to be set aside and judgment and order passed by the Reference Court restored. We say so because, this Court has in a similar appeal directed against the very same order set aside the impugned judgment and restored the enhancement granted by the Reference Court. We see no reason to take a different view in the present case. We, accordingly, allow this appeal and while setting aside the impugned judgment insofar as the same relates to the appellant, restore the judgment and order passed by the Reference Court. The parties shall, however, bear their own costs."
11. The appellant(s) are also similarly placed claimants. They are, thus, 3 2019 SCC Online SC 990 entitled to seek parity and claim the same amount of fair and just compensation as has been awarded to other land owners. The appellant(s) are, however, not entitled to seek interest for the period for which they did not approach this Court."
[7] Also, in the case of K. Subbarayudu & Others vs. Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) (supra), the Apex Court, has pointed out that the term "sufficient cause" is to receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, when no negligence, inaction or want of bona fides is attributable to the appellants, the Court should adopt a justice-oriented approach in condoning the delay. It has also been held and observed that with the acquisition of lands, the lifeline of the agriculturist is lost. There may be omission on the part of the claimants to adopt extra vigilance; but the same need not be used as a ground to depict them with negligence or want of bona fides. In case of acquisition of lands of agriculturists, the courts ought to adopt a pragmatic approach to award just and reasonable compensation and not be Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Fri Feb 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 01 00:38:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/163/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2025 undefined pedantic in their approach. Paragraphs 11 to 13 are set out hereinbelow for ready reference.
"11. The term "sufficient cause" is to receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, when no negligence, inaction or want of bona fide is attributable to the appellants, the Court should adopt a justice-oriented approach in condoning the delay. In State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO, it was held as under:- (SCC p.757, para 8) "8. ....Section 5 is to be construed liberally so as to do substantial justice to the parties. The provision contemplates that the court has to go into the position of the person concerned and to find out if the delay can be said to have been resulted from the cause which he had adduced and whether the cause recorded in the peculiar circumstances of the case is sufficient".
12. With the acquisition of lands, the lifeline of the agriculturist is lost. There may be omission on the part of the claimants to adopt extra vigilance; but same need not be used as a ground to depict them with negligence or want of bona fides. In case of acquisition of lands of agriculturists, the courts ought to adopt a pragmatic approach to award just and reasonable compensation and not pedantic in their approach. In Dhiraj Singh v. Haryana State, it was held as under: (SCC p.131, para 15) "15. Equities can be balanced by denying the appellants' interest for the period for which they did not approach the Court. The substantive rights of the appellants should not be allowed to be defeated on technical grounds by taking hyper technical view of self-imposed limitations. In the matter of compensation for land acquisition, we are of the view that approach of the Court has to be pragmatic and not pedantic."
13. When the concerned court has exercised its discretion Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Fri Feb 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 01 00:38:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/163/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2025 undefined either condoning or declining to condone the delay, normally the superior court will not interfere in exercise of such discretion. The true guide is whether the litigant has acted with due diligence. Since the appellants/claimants are the agriculturists whose lands were acquired and when similar situated agriculturists were given a higher rate of compensation, there is no reason to decline the same to the appellants. Merely on the ground of delay such benefit cannot be denied to the appellants. The interest of justice would be served by declining the interest on the enhanced compensation and also on the solatium and other statutory benefits for the period of delay."
[8] In the case on hand, the applicants have declared before this Court, that they shall forgo the interest for the period of delay in case this Court, were to allow the appeal filed by them and dismiss the appeal by the State Government. In view thereof, the delay of 2790 days caused in filing the captioned first appeal deserves to be condoned and is hereby condoned.
[9] Civil application succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
[10] Copy of the order shall be placed in the record of First Appeal.
(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) (NIRAL R. MEHTA,J) CHANDRESH Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Fri Feb 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 01 00:38:53 IST 2025