Gujarat High Court
Ramesh Popatbhai vs Deputy Collector Land Acquisition And ... on 18 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1701/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1701 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 6535 of 2025
==========================================================
RAMESH POPATBHAI
Versus
DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION &
ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR GM AMIN(124) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RAHUL DAVE, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 18/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Mr.Rahul Dave waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of State.
2. Learned advocate Mr.G.M.Amin submits that in the identically situated case arising out of the same acquisition proceedings, this Court has passed an order on 19.06.2025 whereby all the appeals are admitted. Learned advocate Mr.G.M.Amin submits that the claimants shall not press for interest for the said period of delay.
3. Per contra, learned AGP Mr.Rahul Dave has opposed the application for condonation of delay.
4. This Court has referred to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suresh Kumar V/s. Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by MOHMMEDSHAHID(HC01113) on Wed Nov 19 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 02:15:11 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/1701/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined State of Haryana and Others reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 896, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that even though there was long delay in filing the appeals, it was a case of compulsory acquisition and there had been a difference in the amount of compensation granted to some land losers vis-a-vis others. This Court has also referred to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Market Committee Hodal V/s. Krishan Murari, reported in 1996 (1) SC 311, wherein delay of 3240 days arising from the same acquisition had been condoned. This Court has also referred to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Huchanagouda V/s. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, reported in 2020 (19) SCC 236, wherein the Court had taken into account the poverty and illiteracy of the land loser and condoned the delay of more than 2,000 days. While condoning the delay, the Hon'ble Apex Court had observed that equities had to be balanced by ensuring that the determination of market value relates back to the preliminary notification - making sure that there is no Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by MOHMMEDSHAHID(HC01113) on Wed Nov 19 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 02:15:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/1701/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined prejudice to the acquiring authorities, as also no undue advantage to the land loser. It is observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the appellants who approached the Court with delay, would not be granted interest for such period.
5. Having considered the explanation offered and the submissions made in the above paragraph No.2, this Court is of the considered view that the application requires to be allowed and the delay is required to be condoned. In that background, the application is allowed.
6. It is needless to clarify that the applicants-original claimants shall not be entitled to the interest in event of the enhancement amount of compensation, if any, for the interregnum period i.e. from the date of pronouncement of the impugned judgment and award till the date of filing of the present appeal.
7. Copy of this order shall be placed in the docket of the first appeal. Rule is made absolute.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) MOHMMEDSHAHID Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by MOHMMEDSHAHID(HC01113) on Wed Nov 19 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 02:15:11 IST 2025