Gujarat High Court
Decd Nanjibhai Arjanbhai Through Heirs vs State Of Gujarat on 4 September, 2025
Author: Sangeeta K. Vishen
Bench: Sangeeta K. Vishen
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4286/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4286 of
2025
In F/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 23167 of 2025
==========================================================
DECD NANJIBHAI ARJANBHAI THROUGH HEIRS & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NITIN M AMIN(126) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4
MR SANJAY M AMIN(130) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4
MR SIDDHARTH RAMI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 04/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN) Leave to amend paragraphs 2 and 3 is granted.
2. By this application, the applicants have prayed for condoning the delay of 800 days caused in preferring the captioned Cross Objection in First Appeal no.1496 of 2023.
3. Issue rule, returnable forthwith. Mr Siddharth Rami, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents.
4. Mr Nitin M. Amin, learned advocate for the applicants submitted that in identical matters, this Court, has been kind enough to condone the delay. Captioned application is arising out of the same group. It is submitted that the lands of the applicants have been acquired by the respondent authorities for the public purpose.
Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Thu Sep 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 04 23:34:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4286/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined
Compensation has been awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Against which reference application was preferred, which came to be partly allowed. Being aggrieved, the State Government has preferred the appeal. The applicants were also to an extent aggrieved by the compensation awarded. After taking necessary advice and deliberating the issue and the scope of filing the cross objection for enhancement, the cross objection could be filed with a delay of 800 days.
5. It is submitted that the Apex Court, has time and again held that in the event of losing the land by the claimant and depriving of the compensation for the years to come, would be good ground, preventing the claimants from preferring the appeal. The claimants having lost the land, cannot be expected to immediately take steps by arranging the amount towards the Court fees etc., as it would not be in their interest to while away the time.
6. Mr Siddharth Rami, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the delay is huge; however, as the applicants have waived the interest part on the enhanced amount, appropriate order be passed.
7. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.
8. It is the case of the applicants - claimants that as a result of the acquisition proceedings, the possession of the land was taken in the year 2000. It is thereafter, that the acquisition proceedings were initiated, followed by section 11 notification, further followed by section 18 judgment. It is not in dispute that the claimants have lost the land, so also livelihood on account of the permanent acquisition Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Thu Sep 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 04 23:34:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4286/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined which was their only source of income and hence, could not arrange for the expenses to be incurred for the purpose of filing the proceedings. Only after the receipt of the compensation and obtaining necessary advice, that the captioned cross objection is filed. Besides, the applicant - claimant is also waiving the interest for the delayed period on the enhanced amount of compensation, if this Court were to allow the cross objection and dismiss the appeal.
9. Apt would be the judgment in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another vs. Mst. Katiji and others reported in AIR (1987) SC 135 wherein the Apex Court has held and observed that while condoning the delay, liberal approach be adopted. In yet another decision of the Apex Court in the case of S. Ganesharaju (D) Thr. L. Rs. & another vs. Narasamma (D) Thr. L. Rs. & Others reported in (2012) 4 SCALE 152, it has been held and observed that the expression "sufficient cause" has to be given a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. It is held that unless the respondents are able to show any malafide on the part of the applicants in not approaching the Court within limitation, generally as a normal rule delay should be condoned.
10. It is by now well-settled that in the matter of land acquisition where land of claimants is acquired, a different approach needs to be adopted inasmuch as, the claimants, need not be deprived of the reasonable compensation for their lands. In the case of K. Subbarayudu and Others vs. Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) reported in (2017) 12 SCC 840, the Apex Court, has held and observed that with the acquisition of lands, the lifeline of the agriculturist is lost. There may be omission on the part of the claimants to adopt extra vigilance; but the same need not be used Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Thu Sep 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 04 23:34:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4286/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined as a ground to depict them with negligence or want of bona fides. In the case of acquisition of lands of agriculturists, the Courts ought to adopt a pragmatic approach to award just and reasonable compensation and not be pedantic in their approach.
11. In view of the above, this Court, is of the opinion that the delay, deserves to be condoned on condition that the claimants shall not claim interest for the period of delay on the enhanced amount of compensation, if this Court were to allow the cross objection and dismiss the first appeal. In other words, no interest shall be claimed by the applicants on the enhanced amount of compensation.
12. In view of the statement made at the bar, Civil Application succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
13. Copy of this order, may be placed on record of the captioned Cross Objection as well as First Appeal.
(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) (MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J) BINOY B PILLAI Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by BINOY B PILLAI(HC00183) on Thu Sep 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 04 23:34:26 IST 2025