Patel Keshabhai Shankarbhai ... vs Special Land Acquisition Officer ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3841 Guj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 3841 Guj
Judgement Date : 31 March, 2022

Gujarat High Court

Patel Keshabhai Shankarbhai ... vs Special Land Acquisition Officer ... on 31 March, 2022

Bench: A.G.Uraizee

      C/CA/540/2022                                      ORDER DATED: 31/03/2022




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                      R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 540 of 2022

                       In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 27861 of 2020

==========================================================
    PATEL KESHABHAI SHANKARBHAI SINCE DECD THROUGH HEIR
                            Versus
   SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND DEPUTY COLLECTOR
             LAND ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AV PRAJAPATI(672) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6
MR ADITYASINH JADEJA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE

                                  Date : 31/03/2022

                                   ORAL ORDER

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Adityasinh Jadeja,

learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule for the

respondents.

2. Heard Mr.A.V.Prajapati, learned advocate for the

applicants and Mr. Jadeja, learned AGP for the

respondents.

3. The present application under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act has preferred to condone the delay of 2808

days which has occurred in preferring First Appeal to

C/CA/540/2022 ORDER DATED: 31/03/2022

assail the impugned judgment and award of the Trial

Court.

4. Mr.A.V.Prajapati, learned advocate for the applicants

submit that the applicant are farmers having no

knowledge about the legal remedy and hence, they could

not prefer the appeal within prescribed period. It is his

further submission that the applicants had not abandoned

their 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 applicants are 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

C/CA/540/2022 ORDER DATED: 31/03/2022

condoned.

6. Mr. Jadeja learned AGP has opposed this application

and submits that the delay is inordinate and is not

sufficiently and satisfactorily explained, except stating

that the applicants are farmers 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 2808 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

C/CA/540/2022 ORDER DATED: 31/03/2022

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.

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

C/CA/540/2022 ORDER DATED: 31/03/2022

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 matter of compensation for land acquisition, we are of the view that approach of the Court has to be pragmatic and not pedantic."