Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Gandubhai Bhanabhai Vagadiya on 18 January, 2021
Bench: N.V.Anjaria, A.S. Supehia
C/CA/4056/2019 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4056 of 2019
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 37227 of 2019
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4059 of 2019
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4061 of 2019
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4095 of 2019
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4097 of 2019
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4098 of 2019
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4099 of 2019
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4359 of 2019
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4360 of 2019
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4362 of 2019
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4393 of 2019
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4394 of 2019
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4396 of 2019
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4402 of 2019
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4403 of 2019
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAVJIBHAI SAVJIBHAI KOLI (PADALIYA)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS.DHWANI TRIPATHI, AGP AND MR.ROHAN SHAH, AGP(1) for the
Applicant(s) No. 1,2
Page 1 of 5
Downloaded on : Wed Feb 24 12:49:12 IST 2021
C/CA/4056/2019 ORDER
MR TUSHAR L SHETH(3920) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 18/01/2021
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)
Heard learned Assistant Government Pleaders Ms. Dhwani
Tripathi and Mr. Rohan Shah for the applicants in the respective
Civil Applications in which they appeared and learned advocate
Mr. Tushar L. Sheth for the respondents in each of the
applications.
2. In all the applications captioned herein are filed by the
State through Secretary, Narmada, Water Resources, Water
Supply and Kalpsar Department, it is prayed into condone the
delay which have occurred in preferring the respective First
Appeals. The proposed First Appeals are directed against
judgment and awards being in group of Land Reference Case
Nos.186 to 190 of 2007 and 144 of 2007 decided by common
judgment and award dated 6.2.2019 passed by learned Principal
Senior Civil Judge, Dhoraji. The first captioned Civil Application
No.4056 of 2019 in First Appeal No.37227 of 2019 correspond to
judgment and award delivered in Land Reference Case No.186 of
2007, in which delay of 178 days is prayed to be condoned.
2.1 Delay in each of the cases ranges between 178 days to 195
days. The details are given in the tabular form below.
C/CA/4056/2019 ORDER
Sr.Nos. Civil Applications No. Days of
Delay
3. The explanation furnished for delay runs parallel in each
cases. Referring to the pleadings in that regard in the first Civil
C/CA/4056/2019 ORDER
Application No.4056 of 2019, it was stated that the judgment
and award was pronounced on 6.2.2019, thereafter certified
copy was applied for by District Government Pleader. The
certified copy was made available on 23.5.2019. It was stated
that the opinion from District Government Pleader was obtained
and proposal was forwarded to the Sub Division. Legal
Department considered in the next whether the judgment and
award was required to be challenged. Thereafter, the proposal
travelled to the Superintending Engineer of the Project Circle
concerned and then forwarded to the Secretary of Narmada
Water Resources, Water Supply and Kalpsar Department. There
the committee considered the proposal and granted approval to
prefer the appeal. Thereafter the papers were sent to Legal
Department to the Office of the Government Pleader to the High
Court.
4. In the above entire process time was consumed and the
delay to the aforesaid extent has occasioned, it was explained on
oath.
4.1 Prayer for condonation of delay came to be opposed by the
respondent claimants by filing common affidavitinreply in some
of the cases to apply to all. It was sought to be contended that
there was avoidable time gap between two stages when the
proposal was treated at different levels. It was highlighted that
execution application was also filed and the respondents replied
to the execution application. It was next stated that proceedings
for issuance of warrant were required to be taken out. It was
contended that long lapse of time could not be permitted in the
guise of following the procedure.
C/CA/4056/2019 ORDER
4.2 It was stated that by order dated 26.12.2019, 50% amount
came to be disbursed in favour of the claimants whereas balance
50% was directed to be kept in Fixed Deposit subject to further
orders of the Court.
5. Thus, it could be seen that delay has resulted in preferring
the First Appeals on account of fact that the decisional process
travelled through the hierarchy in the Government departments
at different levels. The applicant Government is an impersonal
body. The consumption of time is inherent element in the
decision making process. As the applicants are the Government
and its department, certain leeway could be permissible when
the passage of time was due to procedural requirement. The
delay is also not too large to be treated as unreasonable.
6. In this view, it could not be said that there is no sufficient
cause. Delay therefore deserves to be condoned.
7. Resultantly, all the applications are allowed by condoning
the delay in each cases. Rule is made absolute in all.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J)
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
Manshi
