Gujarat High Court
Koli Samuben Umaji (Deceased) vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 30 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1694/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1694 of
2024
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 23229 of 2023
================================================================
KOLI SAMUBEN UMAJI (DECEASED) & ORS.
Versus
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR KEYUR A VYAS(3247) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR RAHUL K DAVE, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR PARV S GUPTA(11850) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 30/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 1754 days, caused in preferring the appeal.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Keyur A. Vyas for the applicants, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Rahul Dave for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned advocate Mr. Parv S. Gupta for respondent No.3.
3. Learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that applicants have challenged the judgment and award dated Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 22:32:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/1694/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined 03.08.2016 passed by learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Palanpur, Banaskantha in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.148 to 156 of 2000. It is contended that the amount of compensation deposited by the acquiring body, was withdrawn by claimants somewhere in the year 2017-18. However, the date is not available with the learned advocate for the applicants. The grounds contemplating sufficient cause are narrated in paragraph No.4 of the application. The only ground for delay is insufficiency of funds to pay necessary Court Fee. Applicants, as per the learned advocate for the applicants, because of insufficient knowledge about the law and the circumstances beyond the control of applicants could not prefer an appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. It is further submitted that there is no willful default or negligence on the part of the applicants. It is further contended that out of group of Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.148 to 156 of 2000, many claimants have filed First Appeal with an application for condonation of delay and the delay has been condoned by the Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 22:32:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/1694/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Therefore, also delay may be condoned.
4. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents has objected in granting application and contended that no sufficient case is made out by applicants in explaining the period of delay. It is further submitted that judgment and award in the group of Land Acquisition Reference Cases is dated 03.08.2016 and the appeal filed is on 07.08.2023 with an application for condonation of delay. It is contended that the certified copy of the impugned judgment and award was received on 17.03.2018 and thereafter, applicants remained inactive in challenging the impugned judgment and award.
5. On the other hand, learned advocate for respondent No.3- Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. has also objected in granting the application for condonation of delay and has relied upon decision in the case of Brijesh Kumar and Ors. versus State of Haryana and Ors. reported in (2014) 11 SCC 351 and Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 22:32:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/1694/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined contended that while allowing an application for condonation of delay, Court has to draw a distinction between the delay and inordinate delay for want of bonafides of an inaction or negligence. In the present case, applicants have remained silent after receiving certified copy on 17.03.2018. The inaction for a period of almost five years in challenging the impugned judgment and award is a gross delay without any explanation. The explanation assigned by applicants in the application are not sufficient cause considering the conduct of the applicants. An application for certified copy of impugned award was made after lapse of period of limitation to prefer appeal. Merely because in other land Reference Cases, claimants have preferred First appeal is not a ground for condonation of delay.
6. I have considered submissions canvassed by the learned advocates for the respective parties and also perused the application for condonation of delay. Undisputedly, claimants- applicants have challenged the judgment and award dated 03.08.2016 passed in group of Land Acquisition Reference Case Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 22:32:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/1694/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined Nos.148 to 156 of 2000. The present First Appeal is arising out of Land Acquisition Reference Case No.153 of 2000. As per the submission of learned advocate for the applicants that the amount of compensation has been withdrawn by applicants in the year 2017-18. The application for certified copy of the impugned judgment and award was made on 08.03.2018 and the certified copy was ready for delivery on 14.03.2018. The certified copy was received by claimants on 17.03.2018. When the application is perused there is no worth name explanation explaining the period between 14.03.2018 till filing of the present First Appeal i.e. 07.08.2023. The only explanation tried to be canvassed by applicants is want of sufficient funds for arranging Court Fees. However, from the submission of learned advocate for the applicants, it appears that the scarcity of funds is not a sufficient cause in the present case for the reason that in the year 2017-18, the amount of compensation has been received by claimants. It appears that claimants are fence sitter and waited for other claimants to get higher amount of Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 22:32:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/1694/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined compensation. The conduct of the applicants, in the present case, is not bonafide. When the application for certified copy is not given within the period of limitation, which suggests apathy and negligence on the part of the applicants.
7. In the case of Brijesh Kumar and Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Apex has observed in paragraph Nos.11, 12 and 13 of the said decision, which is as under:-
"11. It is also a well-settled principle of law that if some person has taken a relief approaching the court just or immediately after the cause of action had arisen, other persons cannot take benefit thereof approaching the court at a belated stage for the reason that they cannot be permitted to take the impetus of the order passed at the behest of some diligent person.
12. In State of Karnataka v. S.M. Kotrayya9 this Court rejected the contention that a petition should be considered ignoring the delay and laches on the ground that he filed the petition just after coming to know of the relief granted by the court in a similar case as the same cannot furnish a proper explanation for delay and laches. The Court observed that such a plea is wholly unjustified and cannot furnish any ground for ignoring delay and laches.
13. The same view has been reiterated by this Court in Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana10, observing as under:-
18. ...Suffice it to state that appellants kept sleeping over their rights for long and elected to wake-up when they had the impetus from Vir Pal Chauhan11 and Ajit Singh's12 ratios...Therefore desperate attempts of the appellants to redo the seniority, held by them in various cadre.... are not amenable to the judicial review at this belated stage. The High Court, therefore, has rightly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay as well."Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 22:32:58 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/1694/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined
8. In the case of State of Gujarat Versus Dahayabhai Nyalchand Vora reported in 2014 (0) AIJEL-HC 236088, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in paragraph No.6 of the said decision.
"6. Turning to the explanation offered in the present case, in light of the above parameters set by the Apex Court, it was conspicuously noticed that judgment sought to be challenged was delivered on 14th October, 2011, however the certified copy was applied after more than six months. In other words, even the certified copy was not applied within the period of limitation. The limitation had already expired when the Departmental realised that certified copy was not available and the same was required to be obtained. When the telegram was sent by officer concerned for applying certified copy, the papers had reached Government Pleader's office for drafting and actual filing. The officers of the Department cannot disclaim the knowledge of proceedings, requirements and in particular the period of limitation within which, the appeal could be required to be preferred.
6.1 In Office of the Chief Post Master General(supra), it was appropriately observed by the Apex Court that the persons concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter before the higher court. In that case the certified copy of the High Court's judgment was applied for only after four months by the Postal Department, who had preferred SLP before the Supreme Court.
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 Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 22:32:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/1694/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined 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 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.
6.3. Indolence on part of the applicants in the matter of preferring Appeal is further reinforced in view of uncontroverted fact that in the aforementioned writ petition filed by the respondent herein, certified copy of the judgment of the District Court sought to be impugned in the Second Appeal was placed on record of that petition as back as in December, 2011. The applicants herein who were respondents in the writ petition, were thus posted with knowledge. They were aware, yet they did not act in the matter. It was only after eight months that in July, 2012, Appeal and delay condonation Application was filed. The unexplained yawning gap between the date of judgment and applying of certified copy and the aforesaid aspect, is indicative of gross apathy and indolence on the part of the applicants and its officers."
The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while considering an application for condonation of delay has taken into consideration the decision in the case of Chief Post Master General and Ors. Versus Living Media India Limited, reported in AIR 2012 SC 1506.
9. Considering the facts found from the record, it appears that the conduct of the applicants is not bonafide and no Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 22:32:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/1694/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined sufficient cause is made out therefore, I am of the view that the application for condonation of delay is devoid of merits and therefore, the same is dismissed.
(D. M. DESAI,J) RINKU MALI Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 22:32:58 IST 2025