Gujarat High Court
The State Of Gujarat vs Panchal Jayantibhai Ramabhai on 18 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5484/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5484 of
2024
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 30033 of 2024
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5432 of 2024
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 30028 of 2024
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5435 of 2024
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 30035 of 2024
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5447 of 2024
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 30023 of 2024
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5485 of 2024
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 30029 of 2024
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5487 of 2024
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 30020 of 2024
================================================================
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
Versus
PANCHAL JAYANTIBHAI RAMABHAI
================================================================
Appearance:
MS DEVANSHI PATEL, AGP for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR YOGIN A BHAMBHANI(6444) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 18/06/2025
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. The captioned Civil Applications are filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 2630 days in filing the First Appeal against the judgment and award Page 1 of 13 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 22:23:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/5484/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025 undefined passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Modasa, District-Arvalli in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.960 to 965 of 2010 (Old LAR Nos.47 to 52 of 2007).
2. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Devanshi Patel, for the applicants and learned advocate Mr. Yogin A. Bhambhani for the respondent.
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the applicants has submitted that judgment and award passed in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.960 to 965 of 2010 (Old LAR No.47 to 52 of 2007) is challenged by the State. However, there is a delay in preferring First Appeal. The reasons assigned in the applications are mainly that the authority took time in taking a decision to file an appeal. It is submitted that an application for obtaining certified copy of the impugned judgment and award was made on 05.05.2017 and was received by learned District Government Pleader on 25.09.2017. The opinion of learned District Government Pleader was sent to the Road and Building Page 2 of 13 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 22:23:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/5484/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025 undefined Office, Modasa on 21.04.2018. The Special Land Acquisition officer gave his opinion on 22.07.2019. A letter dated 13.08.2019 was sent for sanctioning of grant. The Superintending Engineer sent proposal dated 20.09.2019 to the State Authority. The said proposal was forwarded on 01.12.2019. On 24.06.2020 a decision was taken to file an appeal against the impugned award. The Revenue Department also opined to file an appeal on 13.07.2020. Calculation-sheets were thereafter, called upon by the State authority on 03.09.2020. The Department of Roads and Building, Modasa sent a proposal to the concerned department after thorough observation of calculation-sheets on 07.10.2020. On 04.12.2020. Concerned Office sent proposal to the Executive Engineer to file an appeal against the impugned award. Again a proposal was sent by the Superintending Engineer on 09.12.2020 to the State Authority for re-consideration of its decision. The grant was sanctioned on 02.02.2021 by the State Authority and the amount was deposited by the State before learned Reference Court on Page 3 of 13 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 22:23:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/5484/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025 undefined 20.02.2021. Execution Application were filed by claimants wherein, learned Reference Court issued recovery warrant. The Office of Superintending Engineer Panchayat, Roads and Building Circle Office, Ahmedabad on 05.05.2023, asked for remaining amount of grant. Thereafter, on 03.10.2023, the State decided to file an appeal. The Execution Petition came to be withdrawn by original claimant in the year 2023. On 18.10.2023, legal department took the decision to file an appeal against the impugned award. On 21.10.2023, Roads and Building Department sent a communication of Superintending Engineer Panchayat, Roads and Building Circle Office, Ahmedabad to file an appeal. Thereafter, various communications was ensued between the legal department of the State and the office of Government Pleader, High Court of Gujarat with regard to supply of records and papers from the concerned office. The office of Government Pleader, High Court of Gujarat also sought for detailed reasons in delay in receiving sanction to file an appeal. Thereafter, the time was consumed in Page 4 of 13 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 22:23:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/5484/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025 undefined receiving the demand draft of the requisite Court fees. Resultantly, delay has been caused.
3.1. It is further submitted that there is no intentional delay on the part of the State in filing the appeal. The time has mainly been consumed in getting the necessary approval and sanctions from various departments of the State. File has to travel from one department to another department of the applicants for necessary approval before a decision to file an appeal is taken by the State machinery. It is, therefore, submitted that there is no negligence on the part of applicants and therefore, in the interest of justice, delay may be condoned.
4. Per contra, learned advocate for the claimant-respondent has vehemently objected in granting of the application. Reliance has been placed upon the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent. It is contended that on 03.09.2020, the Road and Building Department vide communication dated 03.09.2020 pursuant to Page 5 of 13 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 22:23:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/5484/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025 undefined an RTI application filed by the advocate of the claimant, admitted that the judgment and award passed on 28.04.2017 in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.960 to 965 of 2010 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Modasa, District-Arvalli has been accepted by the Government. Vide communication dated 25.09.2020, RTI Officer of Roads and Building Department, Gandhinagar intimated claimants that the judgment and award on 28.04.2017 has been accepted. However, applicants did not comply with the award and took unnecessary time and delayed the payment of compensation. It is further contended that learned Reference Court has relied upon a decision rendered in Land Reference Case No.73 of 1999 passed by learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Modasa at Sabarkantha and passed the judgment and award in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.960 to 965 of 2010. It is further contended that the State has accepted the judgment and award passed in LAR No.73 of 1999 and made the payment of compensation. It is further contended that reasons assigned in Page 6 of 13 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 22:23:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/5484/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025 undefined the application are not sufficient and once the State has decided to accept the judgment and award, any decision taken thereafter by the State is nothing but to see that the claimants do not get the compensation within a reasonable time. Even after withdrawal of the Execution Petition in the year 2023, applicant did not file the appeal within a reasonable time and with malafide intention took time in ensuing unnecessary correspondences with internal departments. No sufficient cause is made out by applicant/s and therefore, delay may not be condoned.
5. I have considered the submissions canvassed by learned advocates for the parties and also perused the application together with affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent. It appears that in group of Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.960 to 965 of 2010, learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Modasa, District-Arvalli has allowed the reference cases on 28.04.2017. The certified copy of the impugned judgment and Page 7 of 13 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 22:23:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/5484/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025 undefined award was received on 25.09.2017 and thereafter, as per the averments made in the applications, more particularly, in paragraph Nos.4 to 9, applicants took time in taking a decision to file an appeal. The reasons which are mentioned in the applications are nothing but a clear case of lethargy on the part of the State Machinery in taking a decision whether to file any appeal or not. Further, it is apt to refer some dates which are mentioned in the application. It is really shocking to note that once Government Authority has taken a decision to accept the judgment and award which can been seen from the communications dated 03.09.2020 and 25.09.2020, the State machinery thereafter, took a decision to file an appeal, which can be demonstrated by referring following dates and events.
Dates Events 22.11.2017 Ld. District Government pleader forwarded his opinion to prefer an Appeal 21.04.2018 Proposal to prefer an Appeal along with opinion of Ld. District Government pleader was sent to Road and Building office, Modasa with an opinion to file an Appeal 22.07.2019 Special Land Acquisition officer gave an opinion 24.06.2020 Committee of Land Acquisition had opined to file an Appeal 13.07.2020 Revenue Department opined to file an Appeal Page 8 of 13 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 22:23:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/5484/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025 undefined 04.12.2020 Concerned officer had sent the proposal to the Executive Engineer to file an Appeal 03.10.2023 State Authority had decided and opined to file an Appeal 18.10.2023 Legal Department had passed necessary orders to file an Appeal 21.10.2023 Roads and Building Department sent a communication to the office of the Superintending Engineer Panchayat, Roads and Building Circle Officer, Ahmedabad to file an Appeal Oct, 2023 Legal Department had sent a communication to the office of the Government Law Officers, High Court of Gujarat to file an Appeal 26.10.2023 Office of Government Pleader, High Court of Gujarat had sent communication to Deputy Secretary, Roads and Building Department, Gandhinagar so as to provide certified copies 20.11.2023 Office of the Government Pleader, High Court of Gujarat, telephonically communicated to the concerned officer so as to provide reason for delay in receiving sanction to file an appeal 16.10.2024 First Appeal filed alongwith an application for condonation of delay
6. Interestingly, applicants have suppressed these two vital and important communications in the application. The Execution Petition which was filed by claimants in the year 2022, came to be withdrawn in the year 2023. A recovery warrant was issued against applicants for the recovery of compensation. Issuance of the recovery warrant against the Government machinery is the height of an inaction on the part of the Government Officers. The award of 2017 was not either challenged nor complied with till the issuance of a recovery Page 9 of 13 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 22:23:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/5484/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025 undefined warrant speaks volume. The conduct of applicants, in the present case, is not sufficient to exercise a discretionary power of condoning delay. The Government machinery has to act swiftly and without any inordinate delay in taking a decision. In the present case, when in the year 2020, the Road and Building Department, Gandhinagar declared its acceptance of the judgment and award passed in reference cases. There was no reasons to withhold compensation. After accepting the award what was need or what was the necessity to take a decision to question the judgment and award, has not been explained in the applications. This is a clear case of inaction on the part of the Government machinery and the reasons assigned in the applications are not sufficient to condone delay. The Government Officers have failed in performing their duties, resultantly, State has to pay interest on such period. Reasons assigned in the applications do not warrant any leniency to be shown to the applicants. In the case of Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy Page 10 of 13 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 22:23:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/5484/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025 undefined reported in (2013) 12 SCC 649, the Hon'ble Apex Court has made following observations;
"21. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are:
21.1. (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-
pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice.
21.2. (ii) The terms "sufficient cause" should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-situation. 21.3. (iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis.
21.4. (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of.
21.5. (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. 21.6. (vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice.
21.7. (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play.
21.8. (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation.
21.9. (ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts Page 11 of 13 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 22:23:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/5484/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025 undefined are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach.
21.10. (x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation.
21.11. (xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation.
21.12. (xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinised and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception.
21.13. (xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude."
7. In the case of Union of India and Another Versus Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy(D) Through His Lr.. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 489, the Hon'ble Apex Court has referred to the case of Esha Bhattacharjee (supra) and has further set out guidelines which are as under;
"22. To the aforesaid principles we may add some more guidelines taking note of the present day scenario. They are:
22.1. (a) An application for condonation of delay should be drafted with careful concern and not in a haphazard manner harbouring the notion that the courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system. 22.2. (b) An application for condonation of delay should not be dealt with in a routine manner on the base of individual philosophy which is basically subjective.Page 12 of 13 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 22:23:52 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/5484/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025 undefined 22.3. (c) Though no precise formula can be laid down regard being had to the concept of judicial discretion, yet a conscious effort for achieving consistency and collegiality of the adjudicatory system should be made as that is the ultimate institutional motto. 22.4. (d) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non-serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a nonchalant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters."
8. Further, in the case of Union of India (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in paragraph No.35, which is reproduced as under;
"35. In a plethora of decisions of this Court, it has been said that delay should not be excused as a matter of generosity. Rendering substantial justice is not to cause prejudice to the opposite party. The appellants have failed to prove that they were reasonably diligent in prosecuting the matter and this vital test for condoning the delay is not satisfied in this case".
9. Resultantly, applications are devoid of merits and the same are dismissed.
(D. M. DESAI,J) RINKU MALI Page 13 of 13 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 22:23:52 IST 2025