Land Acquisition Officer vs Maliwad Nanabhai Khatrabhai
2022 Latest Caselaw 3981 Guj

     C/CA/650/2020                                ORDER DATED: 05/04/2022




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                     R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 650 of 2020
                                     In
                      F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 37632 of 2019

================================================================
                        LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
                                 Versus
                      MALIWAD NANABHAI KHATRABHAI
================================================================
Appearance:
MS VRUNDA C. SHAH, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR VIJAY N RAVAL(2025) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                              Date : 05/04/2022

                                ORAL ORDER

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned Advocate Mr. Vijay N. Raval waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent.

2. This Civil Application has been filed by the applicants praying for condonation of delay of 1241 days in filing of the above First Appeal.

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Vrunda C. Shah submitted that there is a delay of 1241 days in filing the First Appeal against the judgment and award dated 28.03.2016 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Lunawada in L.A.R. No.326/2009. It is further submitted that the learned Government Pleader

C/CA/650/2020 ORDER DATED: 05/04/2022

had applied for the Certified copy on 02.04.2016 and the certified copy was received on 21.08.2017. It is also submitted that the learned Government Pleader had submitted his opinion of preferring an Appeal on 19.02.2018, the Report of LOR was submitted before the sub-division which was further forwarded to the main Branch of the sub-division on 28.02.2018 and 13.08.2018, the proposal was prepared which was submitted before the State Government who had received on 26.03.2018. Thereafter, on 29.05.2018 further complete details were called for which was processed by the Superintending Engineer, Kadana Yojana and on 16.12.2018, the State Government had taken a decision to refer the case to Land Acquisition Committee headed by the Chief Engineer (South Gujarat) and Additional Secretary, Narmada Water Resources, Water Supply and Kalpasar Department and on 07.02.2019, the Committee took a decision to prefer an Appeal. Thereafter, it again went for further processing and approval and on 01.03.2019, the Revenue Department granted the approval. The file was submitted before the Legal Department and on 06.03.2019, the Legal Department consented for preferring an Appeal.

3.1. It is further submitted that for following the process of taking the instructions from the concerned Officer on receipt of the file by the Government Pleader and during the process of receiving all the certified copies finally,

C/CA/650/2020 ORDER DATED: 05/04/2022

the Appeal came to be filed with a delay of 1241 days. It is also submitted that time was taken in the Government process and stated that the delay has been sufficiently explained which is a sufficient cause and hence, this application may be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned Advocate for the respondent Mr. Vijay N. Raval that in a group of 5 matters, the Government has proposed to prefer an Appeal in only one matter and they have accept the award for rest. It is further submitted that the action of the State is a discriminatory treatment and the Appeal is preferred to avoid any legal money to be awarded to the respondent. It is also submitted that the delay should not be condoned as there is a gross negligence and deliberate act on part of the concerned authorities and when the rights and claims of the parties have been settled, it is submitted that no concession should be granted to the State. It is further submitted that the Reference Court had passed the order on the basis of the order in L.A.R. No.364/2009, the additional compensation was granted per square meter and inspite of the above, the said order in L.A.R. No.364/2009, has not been challenged by the Government. Thus, it could be said that the same has been accepted by the Government qua this L.A.R. Case too and thus, on that count also it is submitted to reject the application.

C/CA/650/2020 ORDER DATED: 05/04/2022

4.1. Learned Advocate for the respondent has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Post Master General vs. Living Media India Limited reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563, where the observations read thus −

12. ..... In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government."

5. In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another v. Mst. Katiji and Others reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353 it has been observed as under :-

"3. The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'.

The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaning- ful manner which subserves the ends of justice--that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. It is

C/CA/650/2020 ORDER DATED: 05/04/2022

common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other Courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that:-

1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.

2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is con- doned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.

4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.

5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.

6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.

Making a justice-oriented approach from this perspective, there was sufficient cause for condoning the

C/CA/650/2020 ORDER DATED: 05/04/2022

delay in the institution of the appeal. The fact that it was the 'State' which was seeking condonation and not a private party was altogether irrelevant. The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants, including the State as a liti- gant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is admin- istered in an even handed manner. There is no warrant for according a stepmotherly treatment when the 'State' is the applicant praying for condonation of delay. In fact experi- ence shows that on account of an impersonal machinary (no one in charge of the matter is directly hit or hurt by the judgment sought to be subjected to appeal) and the in-herited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note-making, file pushing, and passing- on-the-buck ethos, delay on its part is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve. In any event, the State which represents the collective cause of the community, does not deserve a litigant-non-grata status. The Courts therefore have to be informed with the spirit and philosophy of the provision in the course of the interpretation of the expression "suffi- cient cause". So also the same approach has to be evidenced in its application to matters at hand with the end in view to do even handed justice on mertis in preference to the approach which scuttles a decision on merits."

6. Thus, taking into consideration the principle as laid down in the above referred judgment and when the delay of 1241 days is sufficiently explained, the same is condoned. The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule made absolute.

Sd/-

(GITA GOPI, J) CAROLINE