Gujarat High Court
Jentilal Popatbhai vs Deputy Collector Land Acquisition And ... on 1 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1631/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1631 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 6554 of 2025
==========================================================
JENTILAL POPATBHAI
Versus
DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. SAMARTH AMIN FOR MR GM AMIN(124) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. SHIVAM DIXIT, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 01/05/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Issue Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondents-State Authorities.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Samarth Amin appearing on behalf of Mr. G.M. Amin, learned advocate on record for the applicant and learned Assistant Government Pleader for and on behalf of the respondents - State Authorities.
3. The present application is filed at the instance of the original claimant seeking condonation of delay of 894 days caused in preferring the proposed captioned appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act whereby he intend to challenge the common impugned judgment and award passed under section 18 of the Act fixing the amount of compensation on lower side.
Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 16:57:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/1631/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined
4. Learned advocate for the applicant has referred to the averments made in the applications and has submitted that the delay is not attributable to any negligence on the part of the present applicant. It is submitted that at relevant stage, the applicant being illiterate and not conversant with the intricacies of the law and being otherwise guided by the co-villagers had chosen not to file an appeal because of want of sufficient Court fees and professional fees. The applicant is small scale agriculturist who is mainly dependent upon agricultural income. After Covid pandemic, he was facing financial hardship. Considering the fact that the Land Acquisition Act itself is a benevolent legislation whereby the object of the Act is welfare of the people and intends to provide just and proper compensation of the acquired land, the prayer was made to condone the delay by taking liberal approach. It was further submitted that in similar set of facts, delay has been condoned by this Court vide order dated 23.04.2025 passed by this Court in Civil Application (for Condonation of Delay) No.957 of 2025 in F/First Appeal No.3011 of 2025. He has therefore urged this Court to condone delay by imposing suitable conditions. 4.1 The reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhiraj Singh v. State of Haryana (2014) 14 SCC 127 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 236 as well as in the case of Imrat Lal v. Land Acquisition Collector & Ors. (2014) 15 SCC 127, whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court had condoned huge delay and has observed that the Courts are expected to take liberal approach in matters pertaining to Land Acquisition Act. The attention of this Court was also invited to the fact that in the aforesaid matters, the ground of parity on grant of compensation was the core issue which was considered while condoning the delay.
Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 16:57:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/1631/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined 4.2 Lastly, learned advocate has placed reliance upon the Three
Judges Bench Judgment in the case of Ningappa Thotappa Angadi Dead Thr. LRs. V/s Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another, reported in (2020) 19 SCC 599.
5. On the other hand, learned AGP for the respondent - State Authorities has vehemently objected to the aforesaid submissions. Learned AGP has submitted that merely because in cognate matters this Court has enhanced the amount of compensation, the same cannot be a ground for considering condonation of the huge number of delay. The applicant was aware about the impugned judgment and award and has remained fence sitter for these years who had chose not to challenge the impugned judgment and order at an advanced stage. The attention of this Court was invited to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pathupati Subba Reddy (Died) by L.Rs. & Ors. v. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) (2024 INSC 286) where the Court following the earlier judgment in the case of Basawaraj and Another V/s Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2011) 4 SCC 316 has held that the term 'sufficient cause' means an adequate and enough reasons which prevented the applicant to approach the court within stipulated period of limitation and in the case where the party is found to be negligent or for want of bona fide or has not acted diligently or remained inactive, the same cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. It was also held that in absence of any sufficient cause being made out, the Courts are not justified in condoning the delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. He has therefore submitted that merely because the other affected land owners have succeeded in receiving the enhanced compensation, the same would not entitle the present applicants who Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 16:57:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/1631/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined had not approached this Court within a stipulated period of limitation by way of appeal. Even otherwise, the merits of the case cannot be examined at the stage of condonation of delay. He has therefore objected to grant of condonation of delay, even by imposing condition of waiving interest.
6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the various decisions as relied upon by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it can be noticed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court right from the decision in the case of Dhiraj Singh (supra) and in the case of Imrat Lal (supra) which has later been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ningappa Thotappa Angadi (supra) which is Three Judges Bench Judgment has consistently opined that where the parties are identically situated and in one set of appeals, they are found to be entitled to enhanced amount of compensation then there can be no reason to give a different treatment to the applicants who approached belatedly. So far as reliance placed by the learned AGP on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court does not refer to the Three Judges Bench judgment in the case of Ningappa Thotappa Angadi (supra) as relied upon by the learned advocate for the applicant. At the same time, the Courts have opined that the equity can be balanced by denying interest for the period for which they did not approached this Court. The broad principle which appealed to the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that the substantive rights of the affected land owners should not be allowed to be defeated on the technical grounds of taking hyper technical view of self-imposed limitations. The court has therefore held that in the matter of compensation for Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 16:57:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/1631/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined land acquisition, the approach of the court has to be pragmatic and not pandemic.
7. Applying the aforesaid principles in the facts of the case where the similarly situated land owners have successfully made out prima facie case to establish their entitlement to the enhanced amount of compensation, the present applicants being similarly situated cannot be deprived of their right to seek enhanced amount of compensation on the technical ground of delay. Hence the equities in the facts of the case is balanced by directing the claimants to be not entitled to the interest on enhanced amount of compensation, if any, for the interregnum period of delay i.e. from the date of the impugned judgment and award till the date of the filing of the present appeal.
8. With these observations and conditions, delay of 894 days caused in preferring the captioned appeal, is hereby condoned. Civil Application stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute.
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J) SUYASH SRIVASTAVA Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 16:57:35 IST 2025