Gujarat High Court
Jitendrabhai Manibhai Shrimali vs State Of Gujarat on 10 January, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/250/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 250 of 2025
==================================================
JITENDRABHAI MANIBHAI SHRIMALI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==================================================
Appearance:
MR MIRENKUMAR K PRIYADARSHI(11023) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS RATNA VORA(2251) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS HETAL PATEL ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No.
1,2
==================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 10/01/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
2. The present petition is directed against the order dated 24.07.2024 passed by the respondent no. 2, namely the Special Land Acquisition Officer, in rejection of the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the reference under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 2013"). The award, with respect to which reference was sought to be made was declared on 14.10.2020. The order impugned records that no plausible explanation could be furnished by the Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Sat Jan 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:58:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/250/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2025 undefined petitioner herein for the delay of more than three years.
3. In the present petition, the delay in filing application under Section 64 of the Act, 2013 is sought to be explained in the following manner :-
(1) It is stated that after the acquisition proceedings were conducted in the year 2012 for acquisition of the land in question for Metro Rail Project, the petitioner and his other family members had preferred a Civil Suit no. 477 of 2020 seeking an injunction against the respondent authorities. The said suit has been dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure vide judgment and order dated 14.11.2022 passed by the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad.
(2) It is further stated that the petitioner had preferred an appeal by way of reference before the Collector, along with an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act read with Section 10 of the General Clauses Act for condonation of delay, on 28.11.2023. There is no explanation in the writ petition as to under which statutory provisions, the appeal was preferred before the Collector on 28.11.2023. Be that as it may, the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 24.01.2024 with the finding that no appeal was maintainable against the award under the Act, 2013.
(3) It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter the petitioner had preferred application dated 15.04.2024 under the RTI Act, 2005 and the Public Information Officer/Deputy Mamlatdar had intimated in the reply dated 30.04.2024 that the proper Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Sat Jan 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:58:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/250/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2025 undefined remedy before the petitioner is to file reference under Section 64(1) of the Act, 2013.
(4) After receipt of this communication dated 30.04.2024, in reply to the RTI application moved by the petitioner, the petitioner filed application under Section 64 of the Act, 2013 before the competent authority. Personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner on 19.07.2024 and thereafter the order impugned dated 24.07.2024 has been passed.
4. Taking note of the explanation submitted by the petitioner in the writ petition about the delay of more than three years in making application under Section 64 of the Act, 2013, it seems that wrong legal advise received by the petitioner from different counsels cannot be a reason to condone the delay. Neither the Civil Suit nor the Appeal was maintainable after the acquisition proceeding was undertaken and had been brought to its logical end with the making of the award dated 14.10.2020 in LAQ Case No. 12 of 2018. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was not aware of the award dated 14.10.2020.
5. We may refer to the provisions of Section 64 of the Act, 2013 to note that the remedy of making reference provided under sub-section (1) of Section 64 of the Act, 2013 is with the limitation provided in sub-section (2) of Section 64 itself. The first and second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 64 of the Act, 2013 mandate the Collector Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Sat Jan 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:58:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/250/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2025 undefined to make a reference within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the application. The first proviso to sub-section (2) provides limitation in two eventuality, six weeks from the date of Collector's award where the person making the application was present or represented before the Collector at the time of making the award. In other cases, it is within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 21, or within six months from the date of Collector's award, whichever period first expires. 5.1. The second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 64 of the Act, 2013, however, confers power with the Collector to condone the delay after the expiry of the period though in a circumscribed manner, within a further period of one year. The power to condone the delay could be exercised by the Collector on recording satisfaction that there was sufficient cause for not filing the application within the period specified in the first proviso. A conjoint reading of the first and second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 64 of the Act, 2013 clearly indicates that the Collector has no power to condone the delay beyond the period prescribed in the aforesaid proviso.
6. In the instant case, delay of more than three years in making the application could not have been condoned by the authority Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Sat Jan 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:58:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/250/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2025 undefined concerned. We, therefore, do not find any error in the order of the authority concerned. However, as to the explanation sought to be made by the petitioner before us in the present petition, we may note from the order of the Collector that after the award was declared on 14.10.2020, three notices dated 15.10.2020, 05.11.2020 and 25.11.2020 were given to the petitioner and the petitioner had accepted the compensation under the award on 28.01.2021. Moreover, the petitioner was availing other remedies which were barred by law, and that must be on the legal advise of the learned counsels consulted by him. The time period elapsed in availing the wrong remedies cannot be condoned on the ground of lack of knowledge of the petitioner of the legal provisions to raise the dispute with regard to the determination of compensation under the award dated 14.10.2020.
7. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Purni Devi & Anr., v. Babu Ram & Anr., rendered in Civil Appeal No. 4633 of 2024 decided on 02.04.2024 mentioned at page '12' of the paper book to submit that the time consumed in contesting the bona fide litigation by the litigant at wrong forum (believing it to be appropriate) would be excluded while computing the limitation under Section 14 (2) of the Limitation Act.
Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Sat Jan 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:58:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/250/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2025 undefined
8. Taking note of the above, suffice it to record that the petitioner has not been able to show his bona fide in availing the wrong remedy by filing Civil Suit after acquisition proceedings were brought to its legal end and before making of the award. Rather, it seems that the Civil Suit was filed to stall the acquisition proceedings and restrain the acquiring bodies/authorities from getting possession of the land in question. The other remedy availed by the petitioner in the shape of filing appeal after declaration of the award after dismissal of the Civil Suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure also cannot be said to be bona fide. The application filed by the petitioner under the RTI Act, 2005, for seeking information about the legal remedy available against the award after receipt of compensation on 28.01.2021 is nothing but an effort to create a ground for condonation of delay in filing application under Section 64 of the Act, 2013. The reliance placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Purni Devi & Anr., (supra) therefore, is of no help to the petitioner.
9. With the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (PRANAV TRIVEDI,J) phalguni Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Sat Jan 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:58:09 IST 2025