Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Decd Gulabbhai Ghelabhai Bhavsar ... on 21 January, 2022
Bench: Hemant M. Prachchhak
C/CA/2303/2020 CAV ORDER DATED: 21/01/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2303 of 2020
In
F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 21370 of 2020
With
F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 21370 of 2020
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7146 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2020
In
F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 21370 of 2020
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7146 of 2016
=======================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
DECD GULABBHAI GHELABHAI BHAVSAR THROUGH HIS LEGAL
HEIRS SURESHBHAI GULABBHAI BHAVSAR
=======================================
Appearance:
MR KM ANTANI AGP (1) for the Applicants
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N)(11) for the Respondent
=======================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
ARAVIND KUMAR
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 21/01/2022
CAV ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK)
C/CA/2303/2020 CAV ORDER DATED: 21/01/2022
[1] Appeal is filed challenging the order dated 07.09.2018
passed in Special Civil Application No.7146 of 2016 by the
learned Single Judge, whereunder the application came to be
allowed and order passed by the authority nullifying the
purchase of Land by petitioner as opposed to Section 73AA(4) of
the Gujarat Land Revenue Code came to be set aside. Since
there is delay of 451 days in filing the appeal, Civil Application
No.2303 of 2020 has been filed seeking condonation of delay.
[2] The present Civil Application has been filed for condonation
of 451 days in preferring the Letters Patent Appeal against the
order dated 07.09.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in
Special Civil Application No. 7146 of 2016. Considering the facts
and circumstances of the case, more particularly, the grounds
stated in the application for condonation of delay, it cannot be
said that such long delay is properly explained by the applicants-
appellants which may lead the Court to exercise discretion for
condonation of delay.
[3] We have heard Mr.K. M. Antani, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for the applicants - appellants.
C/CA/2303/2020 CAV ORDER DATED: 21/01/2022
[4] We may record that as per the well-settled principle of law,
if the delay is for shorter period, the Court may take a lenient
view, but if the delay is for longer period, strict view may be
taken by the Court. Reference may be made to the decision of
the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Aroma Chemical
Industries Limited Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development
Corporation & Another, reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459, more
particularly the observations made at paras 14 to 16, which read
as under:-
"14. We have considered the respective submissions.
The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The
legislature does not prescribe limitation with the
object of destroying the rights of the parties but to
ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and
seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every
legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by
the legislature. To put it differently, the law of
limitation prescribes a period within which legal
remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury.
At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the
power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is
shown for not availing the remedy within the
stipulated time.
15. The expression "sufficient cause" employed in
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other
statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to
apply the law in a meaningful manner which
subserves the ends of justice. Although, no hard and
fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the
applications for condonation of delay, this Court has
C/CA/2303/2020 CAV ORDER DATED: 21/01/2022
justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in
condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter
approach where the delay is inordinate - Collector,
(L.A.) v. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107 : AIR 1987 SC 1353,
N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC
123 : JT (1998) 6SC 242 and Vedabai Vs. Shantaram
Baburao Patil, (2001) 9 SCC 106.
16. In dealing with the applications for condonation of
delay filed on behalf of the State and its
agencies/instrumentalities this Court has, while
emphasizing that same yardstick should be applied
for deciding the applications for condonation of delay
filed by private individuals and the State, observed
that certain amount of latitude is not impermissible in
the latter case because the State represents
collective cause of the community and the decisions
are taken by the officers/agencies at a slow pace and
encumbered process of pushing the files from table to
table consumes considerable time causing delay - G.
Ramegowda Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, (1988) 2
SCC 142, State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani, (1996)
3 SCC 132 : AIR 1996 SC 1623, State of U.P. Vs.
Harish Chandra, (1996) 9 SCC 309 : AIR 1996 SC (L &
S) 1240, State of Bihar Vs. Ratan Lal Sahu, (1996) 10
SCC 635, State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok Ao, (2005) 3
SCC 752 : 2005 SCC (Cri.) 906, and State (NCT) of
Delhi) Vs. Ahmed Jaan, (2008) 14 SCC 582 : (2009) 2
SCC (Cri.) 864.."
If the explanation for delay given in the application for
condonation of delay is considered, it cannot be said that delay
is sufficiently explained. Hence, the delay may not be required to
be condoned.
C/CA/2303/2020 CAV ORDER DATED: 21/01/2022
[5] However, in order to see that the merits of the appeal may
not be frustrated, we called upon the learned Assistant
Government Pleader to address the Court on the merits of the
appeal. If the merits of the appeal are considered with the
reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge, it appears that the
transaction has taken place by way of sale deed in the year 1981
and agreement to sale and the part performance by transfer of
possession had taken place in 1977.
[6] It appears from the record that the transaction was taken
place in 1981 and the show-cause notice was issued after more
than 18 years and the competent authority has initiated action
after about 34 years of delay. A reference has been made by the
learned single Judge to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Patel Raghav Natha and
others, reported in (1969) 2 SCC 187 and, thereafter, the ratio
of subsequent judgment is followed in number of cases.
[7] In view of the above, we do not find that there is any merit
in the appeal to be considered in the Letters Patent Appeal.
C/CA/2303/2020 CAV ORDER DATED: 21/01/2022
[8] In view of the above, when there is no merit in the appeal
to be considered, no useful purpose will be served by taking too
lenient view on the aspect of delay and thereafter to consider
the merit of the appeal at the Letters Patent stage. In view of the
above, delay is not condoned. The Civil Application for
condonation of delay is dismissed. Notice is discharged. The
Letters Patent Appeal No. 21370 of 2020 and all pending civil
applications shall stand disposed of.
(ARAVIND KUMAR, CJ)
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.)
V.R. PANCHAL
