Gujarat High Court
Patel Jagjivanbhai Gandabhai vs State Of Gujarat on 16 November, 2022
Bench: Sangeeta K. Vishen
C/CA/2893/2022 ORDER DATED: 16/11/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2893 of 2022
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 9043 of 2022
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2894 of 2022
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2895 of 2022
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2896 of 2022
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2897 of 2022
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2898 of 2022
==========================================================
PATEL JAGJIVANBHAI GANDABHAI
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
MR ASHUTOSH DAVE, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
Date : 16/11/2022
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. Mr Nitin M. Amin, learned advocate submitted that the present
application, has been filed by the applicants seeking condonation of
delay of 600 days caused in filing the captioned appeals whereby,
the applicants have challenged the judgment and award dated
9.5.2018 passed by the Reference Court in LRC case no.206 of 2010
and other allied matters.
2. Issue Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr Ashutosh Dave, learned
Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule on
C/CA/2893/2022 ORDER DATED: 16/11/2022
behalf of respondent no.1.
3. Mr Nitin M. Amin, learned advocate appearing for the
applicants, submitted that the possession of the land was taken 12
years ago and thereafter, the applicants were without land which,
was the only source of livelihood. Compensation was not paid for
almost all these years and therefore, due to the financial constraint,
no steps were taken. It is submitted that the judgment and award
was passed in the year 2018 and the authorities, have deposited the
amount of compensation only a year back. Though the applicants
have applied for withdrawal of the amount of compensation, till
date, disbursement has not been allowed and the application
seeking disbursement is still pending.
3.1 It is submitted that therefore there was no fault on the part of
the applicants in not preferring appeals in time and that the delay
which has been caused is a bonafide inasmuch as, the monetary
limitation prevented applicants from preferring appeals which,
otherwise has been held to be a valid ground by this Court, while
passing the order dated 30.7.2021 in the case of Mansurbhai
Mulubhai v. (State of Gujarat) Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition
and Rehabilitation (Irrigation) Officer in civil application no.1239 of
2021 in F/First Appeal no.15299 of 2021. It is submitted that this
Court, noted that when the claimant, has lost the land and if they
are out of money, in absence of payment of compensation is a good
reason and makes out a bonafide ground that prevented the
applicant from preferring the appeal. This Court, also pointed out
that the poor farmer who lost the land, cannot be expected to be
able to immediately arrange the funds for litigation expenses. Also,
no litigant, would while away the time for the sake of whiling away
when he intends to agitate for his legal rights. It is therefore
C/CA/2893/2022 ORDER DATED: 16/11/2022
submitted that considering the explanation offered so also the
opinion expressed by this Court in the order dated 30.7.2021 passed
in civil application no.1239 of 2021, the applications be allowed and
the delay be condoned.
3.2 Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v. Mst.
Katiji and others reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353 so also the judgment
in the case of S. Ganeshraju (D) Thr. L.Rs. and another v.
Narasamma (D) Thr. L.Rs. and others reported in 2012 (4) Scale
152. It is well settled principle that expression "sufficient cause" is
to be given liberal interpretation so as to advance substantial
justice. It is therefore urged that the applications be allowed
condoning the delay of 600 days in filing the appeals.
4. Mr Ashutosh Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader
submitted that the delay, is enormous and only on the limited
ground of non availability of compensation, the explanation offered
cannot be accepted; however, it is urged that let appropriate order
be passed.
5. Heard Mr Nitin M. Amin, learned advocate appearing for the
applicants and Mr Ashutosh Dave, learned Assistant Government
Pleader for the respondent-State.
6. Pertinently, it is not in dispute that the possession of the land
of the applicants was taken before 12 years and thereafter, the
applicants have been without land and also the compensation. It is
also not in dispute that reference case came to be decided by the
judgment dated 9.5.2018; followed by deposit of the amount of
compensation; further followed by the applications by the applicants
seeking disbursement. It is also not in dispute that though the
C/CA/2893/2022 ORDER DATED: 16/11/2022
applications for disbursement is filed, no order has been passed
allowing the disbursement. It is not that the applicants have not
taken any steps and it is only after waking up from the slumber, one
fine morning, that the appeals have been filed.
7. From the averments made in the application, it is discernible
that the applicants, have been taking steps for the enhancement of
the amount of compensation. This Court, in the case of Mansurbhai
Mulubhai v. (State of Gujarat) Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition
and Rehabilitation (Irrigation) Officer has noted that the person, who
has lost the land and did not have the money, in absence of the
payment of the compensation is a good reason and makes out a
bonafide ground which prevented the applicants from preferring the
appeals. It has also been held that poor farmers who have lost the
land cannot be expected to be able to immediately arrange the
funds for incurring the expenses towards the litigation. It also
cannot be said that the person, who has lost the land would not take
steps for the purpose of the compensation more particularly, the
land, which have been acquired is the source of livelihood.
8. The Apex Court, in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition,
Anantnag and another v. Mst. Katiji and others (supra) has held and
observed that liberal approach be adopted while condoning the
delay. Yet in another decision in the case of S. Ganeshraju (D) Thr.
L.Rs. and another v. Narasamma (D) Thr. L.Rs. and others (supra)
the said principle has been reiterated. It has been held and
observed that the expression "sufficient cause" is to be given a
liberal interpretation so as to advance substantial justice. Exception
is that unless the respondents are able to show malafide in not
approaching the Court within limitation, generally, as a normal rule,
the delay should be condoned.
C/CA/2893/2022 ORDER DATED: 16/11/2022
9. In the present case, owing to the limitation at the end of the
applicants, the applicants could not file appeals in time and
therefore, delay of 600 days occurred in filing the captioned
appeals.
10. In view of the aforementioned discussion so also the principle
governing the aspect of condonation of delay, civil applications
succeed and the delay of 600 days caused in filing the captioned
appeals is condoned.
11. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.
12. Let the copy of this order be placed in concerned applications.
(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J)
RAVI P. PATEL
