Gujarat High Court
Tapodhan Prabhudas Khodidas ... vs Deputy Collector Land ... on 10 January, 2022
Bench: A.G.Uraizee
C/CA/23/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 23 of 2022
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 24485 of 2020
==========================================================
TAPODHAN PRABHUDAS KHODIDAS SINCE DECD THROUGH HEIRS
Versus
DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AV PRAJAPATI(672) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5
MR SOAHAM JOSHI AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE
Date : 10/01/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.Soaham Joshi, learned
AGP waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent -
State.
2. Heard Mr. A.V. Prajapati, learned advocate for the
applicants and Mr. Soaham Joshi, learned AGP for the
respondent-State.
3. The present application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act has preferred to condone the delay of 3868
days which has occurred in preferring First Appeal to
assail the impugned judgment and award of the Trial
Court.
4. Mr. Mr. A.V. Prajapati, learned advocate appearing for
C/CA/23/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2022
the applicants reiterated the averments made in the
application for condonation of delay and submitted that
due to a number of reasons like burden of paying
outstanding dues in the market, demonetization, short of
money to pay the Court fees to file the present appeal,
pandemic of Covid-19, and due to some time spent in
getting proper legal advice resulted delay of 3868 days in
preferring the First Appeal. He further submits that the
applicants are farmers having no knowledge about the
legal remedy and hence, they could not prefer the appeal
within prescribed period. It is his further submission that
the applicants had not abandoned their right to prefer an
appeal and no malafide is apparent so as to dismiss the
present application.
5. Mr. A.V. Prajapati, learned advocate for the applicants
relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of K.
Subbarayudu vs. Special Deputy Collector (Land
Acquisition) reported in 2017 (12) SCC 840. He
submits that the term "sufficient cause" should receive
liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice.
He further submits that the applicants are ready and
willing to forgo the interest and consequential statutory
benefits ensuing from the impugned judgment and order
for the period of delay, if the period of delay is condoned.
He, therefore, urges that the delay may be condoned.
6. As against this, Mr. Soaham Joshi, learned AGP has
C/CA/23/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2022
vehemently opposed the aforesaid application for
condonation of delay and submitted that the delay is not
properly explained by the applicants in the application for
condonation of delay. He submitted that the applicants'
ignorance cannot be treated as a ground to condone the
delay. The applicants could have file the appeal well
within time as an indigenous persons if they had no
money to pay the Court fees and therefore the grounds
stated in the application cannot be said to be sufficient
ground to condone the delay and requests for dismissal of
present application for condonation of delay of 3868 days.
7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
submissions made at bar. It is undisputed fact that the
delay which has occurred in preferring first appeal is
huge delay i.e. delay of 3868 days.
8. At this stage, it is relevant to take into account the
observations made by Supreme Court in paragraph Nos.
10 to 12 in case of K. Subbarayudu (supra), which read
as under:-
"10. Before the High Court, the appellants relied
upon Yellasiri Sarojanamma's case, in L.A.S.S.
No.46 of 2015, in which the High Court condoned
the delay of 3386 days in filing the land acquisition
appeal suit subject to the condition that in the event,
the appellant/claimant thereon succeed in appeal,
C/CA/23/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2022
she is not entitled to any interest in respect of the
period of delay. The appellants contended that the
same approach ought to have been adopted in the
case of appellants also. Insofar as, the reliance
placed upon by the claimants in L.A.S.S.
No.46/2015, the High Court seems to have brushed
aside the contention of the appellants on the puerile
ground that the relevant fact situation in the said
case is not forthcoming in the said order. In our
view, the High Court was not right in adopting a
different yardstick in the case of the appellants in
not condoning the delay.
11. The term "sufficient cause" is to receive liberal
construction so as to advance substantial justice,
when no negligence, inaction or want of bonafide is
attributable to the appellants, the Court should
adopt a justice-oriented approach in condoning the
delay. In State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO and Others
(2005) 3 SCC 752: 2005 (4) JT 10, it was held as
under:-
"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
C/CA/23/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2022
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 fide. 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 (D) Thr. Lrs. Etc.
Etc. v. Haryana State and Ors. Etc. Etc. 2014 (9)
SCALE 441, 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."
9. In view of the above observations of the Supreme Court
coupled with the fact that the applicants are willing and
ready to forgo the interest on enhanced compensation
C/CA/23/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2022
and the statutory benefits flowing on the enhanced
compensation for the period of delay, if the appeal is
allowed, I am of the opinion that the delay needs to be
condoned.
10. For the foregoing reasons, the application is allowed
and delay of 3868 days caused in preferring first appeal is
hereby condoned on condition that the applicants shall
not entitle to interest on enhanced compensation and
consequential benefits on enhanced compensation for the
period of delay, if the appeal is allowed.
11. The application stands disposed of accordingly. Rule
is made absolute.
(A.G.URAIZEE, J)
SURESH SOLANKI
