Gujarat High Court
Patel Laxmanbhai Atmaram vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 4 March, 2022
Bench: A.G.Uraizee
C/CA/319/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/03/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 319 of 2022
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1715 of 2022
==========================================================
PATEL LAXMANBHAI ATMARAM
Versus
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIRAL J DAVE(5751) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR SOAHAM JOSHI AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE
Date : 04/03/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Soaham Joshi, learned
AGP waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent.
2. Heard Mr.V.J. Dave, learned advocate for the applicant
and Mr. Soaham Joshi, learned AGP for the respondent.
3. The present application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act has preferred to condone the delay of 3375
days which has occurred in preferring First Appeal to
assail the impugned judgment and award of the Trial
Court.
C/CA/319/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/03/2022
4. Mr. V.J. Dave, 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 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. Mr. Soaham Joshi, learned AGP has opposed this
C/CA/319/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/03/2022
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 of 3375 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
C/CA/319/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/03/2022
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".
C/CA/319/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/03/2022
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 applicant is willing and
ready to forgo the interest on enhanced compensation
C/CA/319/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/03/2022
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 3375 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)
SURESH SOLANKI
