Gujarat High Court
Vira Lakhman vs State Of Gujarat on 8 July, 2022
Bench: Aniruddha P. Mayee
C/CA/1094/2022 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1094 of 2022
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2138 of 2022
==========================================================
VIRA LAKHMAN
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NITIN M AMIN(126) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SANJAY M AMIN(130) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS ASMITA PATEL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 08/07/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Asmita Patel, learned
AGP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent-
State.
2. Heard Mr. Nitin M. Amin, learned advocate for the
applicants and Ms. Asmita Patel, learned AGP for the
respondent-State.
3. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act to condone delay of 1124 days which has occurred in
preferring First Appeal to assail impugned judgment and
award of the Reference Court.
4. Mr. Nitin M. Amin, learned advocate for the applicants
submit that the delay has occurred in preferring appeal for
the reasons mentioned in para-3 of the application. It is his
C/CA/1094/2022 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2022
further submission that other land owners had approached
this Court by preferring First Appeal No.3560 of 2017 and
cognate appeals which had emanated from the selfsame
award. He submits that the Division Bench of this Court by
order dated 09/01/2018 has remanded the matters to the
Reference Court for fresh award by carrying out certain
correction of calculation of the compensation payable to the
land owners. He therefore, urges that the delay may be
condoned.
5. Ms. Asmita Patel, learned AGP submits that the delay is
very huge delay. According to her submission, the delay is not
properly and sufficiently explained in para-3 of the
application. She submits that the concept of liberal approach
in condoning delay does not mean that the Court should
condone huge delay unconditionally. She therefore, urges that
while condoning delay, the applicants may be precluded from
getting the interest for the period of delay.
6. I have considered rival submissions. It is proved that
there is huge delay in preferring first appeal.
7. 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 vs. Special Deputy Collector
(Land Acquisition) reported in 2017 (12) SCC 840), 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
C/CA/1094/2022 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2022
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.
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 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
C/CA/1094/2022 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2022
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."
8. Considering the overall facts and the fact that the cognate
appeals have been decided by the Division Bench of this Court
and the matters were remitted to the Reference Court for
fresh consideration to carry out correction in the computation
of the compensation amount payable to the land owners, I am
of the view that discretion of condoning delay is required to
be exercised in favour of the applicants subject to payment of
cost.
9. In view the above, the present civil application succeeds
and is hereby allowed. The delay of 1124 days occurred in
preferring first appeal to assail the impugned judgment and
award of the Reference Court is hereby condoned subject to
payment of cost of Rs.1,000/-. The applicants are directed to
deposit a sum of Rs.1,000/- in the District Legal Aid
Committee, Junagadh on or before 31/07/2022.
10. The application stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is
made absolute.
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)
ILA
