Gujarat High Court
Patel Rugnath Pitambar Died ... vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 4 January, 2022
Bench: A.G.Uraizee
C/CA/1927/2021 ORDER DATED: 04/01/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1927 of 2021
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 26640 of 2021
==========================================================
PATEL RUGNATH PITAMBAR DIED THROUGH LH PATEL
VIRCHANDBHAI RUGNATHBHAI
Versus
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AV PRAJAPATI(672) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS URMILA DESAI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE
Date : 04/01/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms.Urmila Desai,
learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule for
the respondent - State.
2. Heard Mr.A.V.Prajapati, learned advocate for
the applicant and Ms. Urmila Desai, learned AGP
for the respondents.
3. The present application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act has preferred to condone the delay
of 2090 days which has occurred in preferring
First Appeal to assail the impugned judgment and
award of the Trial Court.
4. Mr.A.V.Prajapati, learned advocate for the
applicant submits that the applicant is a farmer
having no knowledge about the legal remedy and
hence, he could not prefer the appeal within
prescribed period. It is his further submission
C/CA/1927/2021 ORDER DATED: 04/01/2022
that the applicant had not abandoned his right to
prefer an appeal and no malafide is apparent so
as to dismiss the present application.
5. He 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 applicant is
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. Ms.Urmila Desai, learned AGP has opposed this
application and submits that the delay is
inordinate and is not sufficiently and
satisfactorily explained, except stating that the
applicant is a farmer having no knowledge of
legal nicety. He, therefore, submits that the
delay may not be condoned.
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
C/CA/1927/2021 ORDER DATED: 04/01/2022
of 2090 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, 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.
C/CA/1927/2021 ORDER DATED: 04/01/2022
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 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 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
C/CA/1927/2021 ORDER DATED: 04/01/2022
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
applicant is willing and ready to forgo the
interest on enhanced compensation 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.
C/CA/1927/2021 ORDER DATED: 04/01/2022
10. For the foregoing reasons, the application is
allowed and delay of 2090 days caused in
preferring first appeal is hereby condoned on
condition that the applicant 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)
MOHMMEDSHAHID
