Gujarat High Court
Shivaji Kahyaji vs State Of Gujarat on 13 December, 2022
Bench: Sangeeta K. Vishen
C/CA/3297/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/12/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3297 of 2022
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 35531 of 2022
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3298 of 2022
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3299 of 2022
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3300 of 2022
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3301 of 2022
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3302 of 2022
==========================================================
SHIVAJI KAHYAJI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AV PRAJAPATI(672) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP
MR AKASH CHHAYA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
Date : 13/12/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. Mr. Ankur Kiri, learned Advocate for Mr. AV Prajapati,
learned Advocate appearing for the applicant submitted that by this
application, the applicant has prayed for condoning the delay of
535 days caused in filing the captioned first appeal whereby the
applicant-appellant had challenged the award dated 15.02.2019
passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bhiloda in Land
Acquisition Case to 7 to 20 of 2018. It is submitted that the
acquisition proceedings were initiated by issuing Section 4
notification somewhere in the year 1999 followed by Section 6
C/CA/3297/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/12/2022
notification further followed by the award under Section 11 in the
year 2000 in the references under Section 18. The learned Judge,
has passed the judgment awarding the compensation at the rate of
Rs.207.13 sq. mts. for agriculture land and Rs.295.90 for non-
agriculture land as an additional compensation. It is submitted that
recently, in the month of March, 2022, the respondents deposited
the amount of compensation. The same was thereafter, withdrawn
by the applicants and necessary steps could be taken for
challenging the judgment dated 15.02.2019. It is submitted that the
applicants are villagers and not very much equipped with and
conversant with the intricacies of law. However, after taking
appropriate advice steps were taken for filing the present appeal. It
is stated at the bar that if the appeal filed by the applicant-
appellant was to be allowed, the applicant shall not claim interest
for the delayed period on the enhanced amount of compensation.
2. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in the case
of K. Subbarayudu and Others vs. The Special Deputy Collector
(Land Acquisition) reported in (2017 ) 12 SCC 840. It is therefore
urged that the delay be condoned.
3. Issue Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Akash Chhaya, learned
Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule on
behalf of the respondents.
4. Having regard to the submissions recorded hereinabove, so
also the fact that the applicant-appellant have agreed before this
Court that they will not claim interest for the delayed period on the
enhanced amount of compensation, this Court is of the opinion that
C/CA/3297/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/12/2022
the present Civil application deserves to be allowed.
5. This Court has also taken into account the principles laid
down by the Apex Court in the case of K. Subbarayudu and Others
vs. The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition)(supra).
Relevant paragraphs read thus:
"11. The term "sufficient cause" is to receive liberal
construction so as to advance substantial justice, when no
negligence, inaction or want of bona fide is attributable to the
appellants, the Court should adopt a justice-oriented approach
in condoning the delay. In State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao, it was
held as under:-
"8. .....Section 5 is to be construed liberally so as to do
substantial justice to the parties. The provision contemplates
that the court has to go into the position of the person
concerned and to find out if the delay can be said to have
been resulted from the cause which he had adduced and
whether the cause recorded in the peculiar circumstances of
the case is sufficient".
12. 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 same need not be used
as a ground to depict them with negligence or want of bona
fides. In case of acquisition of lands of agriculturists, the courts
ought to adopt a pragmatic approach to award just and
reasonable compensation and not pedantic in their approach.
In Dhiraj Singh v. State of Haryana, it was held as under:-
"15. Equities can be balanced by denying the appellants'
interest for the period for which they did not approach the
Court. The substantive rights of the appellants should not be
allowed to be defeated on technical grounds by taking hyper
technical view of self-imposed limitations. In the matter of
compensation for land acquisition, we are of the view that
approach of the Court has to be pragmatic and not
pedantic."
13. When the concerned court has exercised its discretion
either condoning or declining to condone the delay, normally
the superior court will not interfere in exercise of such
discretion. The true guide is whether the litigant has acted with
due diligence. Since the appellants/claimants are the
agriculturists whose lands were acquired and when similar
situated agriculturists were given a higher rate of
compensation, there is no reason to decline the same to the
C/CA/3297/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/12/2022
appellants. Merely on the ground of delay such benefit cannot
be denied to the appellants. The interest of justice would be
served by declining the interest on the enhanced compensation
and also on the solatium and other statutory benefits for the
period of delay."
6. In view of the above discussion, civil application stands
allowed in terms of paragraph 9A. The delay of 535 days occurred
in filing of the First Appeal is hereby condoned.
7. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to
costs.
(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J)
SINDHU NAIR
