Gujarat High Court
Lh Of Becharbhai Lalabhai Bhagvanji ... vs Deputy Collector Jamnagar on 21 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2130/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 2130 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 11321 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2517 of 2025
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 11245 of 2025
==========================================================
LH OF BECHARBHAI LALABHAI BHAGVANJI VASHRAM
Versus
DEPUTY COLLECTOR JAMNAGAR & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ADITYA S PATEL(12087) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
RAHUL DAVE AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 21/11/2025
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Mr. Dave waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. Learned advocate Mr. Patel for the applicant submits that the delay was caused in filing the first appeal because of the applicant's financial incapability to arrange the legal expenses, as well as the applicant is farmer and due to nature of schedule, the delay of 1452 days has been caused. Learned advocate Mr. Patel further submits that he would not claim interest in the event of succeeding in the Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:27:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/2130/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined first appeal for the delayed period and therefore, he prays that this application may be allowed.
3. Per contra, learned AGP Mr. 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. 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 Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:27:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/2130/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined 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 prejudice to the acquiring authorities, as also no undue advantage to the land loser.
4.1. 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. Having considered the explanation offered in the application 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.
5. 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 Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:27:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/2130/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined the present appeal.
6. Copy of this order shall be placed in the docket of the first appeal. Rule is made absolute.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) Vikramsinh Amarsinh Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:27:05 IST 2025