Gujarat High Court
Devatbhai Jivabhai vs (State Of Gujarat) Deputy ... on 3 August, 2021
Bench: N.V.Anjaria
C/CA/1279/2021 ORDER DATED: 03/08/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1279 of 2021
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 15295 of 2021
==========================================================
DEVATBHAI JIVABHAI
Versus
(STATE OF GUJARAT) DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION AND
REHABILITATION (IRRIGATION) OFFICER,
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NITIN M AMIN(126) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SANJAY M AMIN(130) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR MANRAJ BAROT, AGP(99) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
Date : 03/08/2021
ORAL ORDER
Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Manraj Barot
appears upon service of copy of the application in advance on
behalf of the respondent State and its authorities, having regard
to the facts of the case and with consent of learned advocates
appearing for the parties, the application was taken up for final
consideration.
1.1 Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government
Pleader waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent State
and its authorities.
1.2 Heard learned advocate Mr.Nitin Amin for the applicant
and learned Assistant Government Pleader.
2. It is to condone the delay of 538 days which has occurred
in preferring the main appeal by the claimants that the present
application is filed. The appeal is directed against judgment and
C/CA/1279/2021 ORDER DATED: 03/08/2021
award dated 21.6.2018 passed by the learned Principal Senior
Civil Judge, Rajula in Land Reference Case No.334 of 2017.
3. Explaining the passage of time in filing of the appeal
leading to delay, it is stated by the applicant that the possession
of the land of the applicant, which was acquired, was taken in
August, 2001. The applicant was rendered without land and
without compensation having lost the source of earning. It is
stated that more than twenty years for want of funds, the
applicant was unable to take steps to file the appeal as he did
not have money to meet with the Court fees and legal expenses.
It is in this light that the delay has occurred, it is stated.
4. Learned advocate for the applicant relied on the order on
this Court dated 4.11.2020 in Lakha Jivabhai Harijan Vs.
State of Gujarat through the Deputy Collector and Land
Acquisition and Rehabilitation Officer, being Civil
Application No.2526 of 2020 in F/First Appeal No.14404 of
2020, to submit that there also the ground seeking to condone
the delay of 827 days was that the claimant had not received
compensation and for want of financial unavailability they were
prevented from filing the appeal. The Court allowed the said
application accepting the said ground to be bonafide and
condoned the delay of 827 days.
4.1 On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader
submitted that even if the delay is to be condoned, the cost
should be imposed.
5. The cause advanced by the applicant that they had lost the
land and they did not have the money in absence of payment of
C/CA/1279/2021 ORDER DATED: 03/08/2021
compensation is a good reason and makes out bonafide ground
that prevented the applicant from preferring the appeal. The
poor farmer who lost the land could not be expected to be able
to immediately arrange the funds for litigation expenses.
Furthermore, no litigant would while away the time for the sake
of whiling away when he intends to agitate for his legal rights.
6. In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another
Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, [AIR 1987 SC (1353)], the
Supreme Court observed that liberal approach be adopted on
principle to condone the delay. In S. Ganeshraju (D) Thr.
L.Rs. and Another Vs. Narasamma (D) Thr. L.Rs. and
Others [2012 (4) Scale 152], it was reiterated that the
expression 'sufficient cause' is to be given liberal interpretation
so as to advance substantial justice. It is stride that unless the
malafide is evident in the conduct of the litigant seeking to
condone the delay and cause is shown which is genuine, the
delay should be normally condoned accepting such
circumstances as sufficient cause.
7. In the present case, the applicant cannot be faulted for
passage of time. Nor it can be said that he remained negligent
deliberately to while away the time. Sufficient cause is made out,
what is stated above, it is another aspect mentioned that the
intervening period of lockdown due to COVID-19 pandemic
further delayed the filing of the appeal to make total delay of
538 days.
8. The request of learned Assistant Government Pleader for
imposing cost while condoning delay is to be readily rejected
when the sufficient cause is made out and the culpable
C/CA/1279/2021 ORDER DATED: 03/08/2021
negligence is not there on the part of the applicant. The poor
land owner cannot be subjected to imposition of cost. Such
request at the end of State is uncalled for.
9. Resultantly, this application is allowed. Delay is condoned.
Rule is made absolute.
The main appeal may be listed on 10.8.2021 at the request
of learned advocate for the applicant- appellant.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J)
Manshi
