Mukeshkumar Ramanlal Desai vs Special Land Acquisition Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 976 Guj

          C/CA/2697/2020                                     ORDER



        IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
              R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2697 of 2020
             In F/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 449 of 2020
==========================================================
                MUKESHKUMAR RAMANLAL DESAI
                             Versus
              SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIJAY N RAVAL(2025) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR MG NAGARKAR(496) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
        and
        HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN

                            Date : 21/01/2021

                        ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI)

1. The applicant has urged that the original respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have preferred, First Appeal No. 4892 of 2019 before this Court, challenging the judgment and award passed by the learned Principal Sr. Civil Judge, Shehara, Panchmahal, Dated: 07.07.2018, in Reference Case No. 177 of 2017 (Old Case No. 11/1998), where, the First Appeal along with the application for stay was listed for hearing on 23.10.2019, where, this Court issued notice in both the matters, whereupon, the cross-objections came to be preferred by the present applicants, after the delay of 45 days.

1.1 The applicants sought to explain the delay of 45 days, by urging that they were under the bona fide impression that the period of limitation would start from the date of filing of appeal. It is, therefore, urged that the delay be condoned.

              C/CA/2697/2020                                   ORDER



2         We have heard the learned Advocate, Mr. Vijay Raval, for the

applicants and the learned Advocate, Mr. M.G. Nagarkar, for the respondent.

2.1 Having heard both the sides and on being satisfied with the explanation given for the delay of 45 days and also noticing the fact that the applicants also had difficulty in arranging for the court fees, since, no amount of award is received by them and the delay not being major, the request made, deserves to be acceded to.

3. Resultantly, this application is ALLOWED and the delay of 45 days caused in filing cross-objections is CONDONED. Rule is made absolute, accordingly.

(SONIA GOKANI, J)

(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) UMESH/-