Gujarat High Court
Solanki Ramsinh Kahaysinh vs State Of Gujarat on 11 March, 2022
Bench: A.G.Uraizee
C/CA/411/2022 ORDER DATED: 11/03/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 411 of 2022
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5389 of 2022
================================================================
SOLANKI RAMSINH KAHAYSINH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==============================================================================
Appearance:
MR MANISH S SHAH(5859) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE
Date : 11/03/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Soaham Joshi, learned
AGP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the
respondent.
2. Heard Mr. Manish S. Shah, learned advocate for the
applicant and Mr. Soaham Joshi, learned AGP for the
respondent.
3. This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation
Act to condone the delay of 953 days which has occurred
in preferring First Appeal to assail the judgment and
award of the reference Court.
4. Mr. Shah, learned advocate submits that the appellant
is an agriculturist. He further submits that due to the
reasons stated in memo of present application, the
applicant had no money to prefer an appeal. It is his
further submission that the appellant had never give up his
right to prefer an appeal to challenge the impugned
judgment and award of the reference Court. He has relied
upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K.
Subbarayudu vs. Special Deputy Collector (Land
C/CA/411/2022 ORDER DATED: 11/03/2022
Acquisition) reported in 2017 (12) SCC 840 urges that the
delay may be condoned.
5. Mr. Joshi, learned AGP oppose this application. He
submits that lack of legal knowledge or the financial
difficulty is not a ground to condone delay specially when
it is not properly and sufficiently explained. He submits
that in case this Court is inclined to condone the delay,
the interest for the period of delay may not be allowed.
6. I have considered the rival submissions.
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 (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/411/2022 ORDER DATED: 11/03/2022
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 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
C/CA/411/2022 ORDER DATED: 11/03/2022
matter of compensation for land acquisition, we are
of the view that approach of the Court has to be
pragmatic and not pedantic."
8. So far as the submissions of Mr. Joshi, learned AGP
to dis-entitle the applicant for interest for the period of
delay is concerned, I am of the view that since delay is of
less then 1000 days, it would not be appropriate to
denewed the applicant from his entitlement to receive the
interest in light of the explanation for the delay put forth
in the application.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the application is allowed.
The delay of 953 days which has occurred in preferring an
appeal to assail the impugned judgment and order of the
reference Court is condoned. Rule is made absolute.
(A.G.URAIZEE, J)
Manoj
