Gujarat High Court

Jagmalbhai Lakhamanbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 30 September, 2022

Bench: Nisha M. Thakore

     C/CA/2359/2022                               ORDER DATED: 30/09/2022




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                 R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2359 of 2022

                      In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5716 of 2022

                                 With
                  R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2369 of 2022
                                 With
                  R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2373 of 2022
                                 With
                  R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2374 of 2022
==========================================================
                        JAGMALBHAI LAKHAMANBHAI
                                 Versus
                            STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NITIN M AMIN(126) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR SANJAY M AMIN(130) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, Asst.GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
       and
       HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
                  Date : 30/09/2022

                       ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE)

1. The group of applicants, who are before this Court seeking

to condone the delay of 2458 days, challenging the judgment and

order dated 21.02.2013 passed by the learned Senior Civil

Judge, in Land Reference Cases at Junagadh.

2. It emerges from the record that the possession of the lands

of the applicants had been taken over by the State in the year

C/CA/2359/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2022

2000. Additional compensation had been given at the rate of

Rs.32.40 per square meters for irrigated land and Rs.25.87 per

square meters for Jirayat land and Rs.11.14 per square meters

for non-used/ uncultivated land. Additional compensation was

given at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of 30 months

and solatium at the rate of 30% on the said amount. This has

aggrieved the applicants, whose main grievance is that the sale

instances of the very village, whereby the market value of the

land had been fixed at Rs.75 has not been taken into

consideration by the Reference Court.

3. It is further their say that they were without the land and

any compensation for the period of nearly 10 years and

therefore, could not have sufficient fund to file appeals. Hence,

the request is made to condone the delay of 2458 days relying on

the decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of K

Subbarayadu and others vs. Special Deputy Collector (Land

Acquisition), reported in 2017 12 SCC 840. It was an appeal

under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before the Apex Court

where the delay of 3671 days has been condoned by the Apex

Court by striking the balance that for the delay which has been

caused, no interest would be chargeable.

C/CA/2359/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2022

4. This Court has heard the learned advocate, Mr.Nitin Amin

appearing for the applicants and learned Assistant Government

Pleader, Ms. Dhwani Tripathi for respondents-State.

5. Learned advocate, Mr.Nitin Amin has relied on the decision

of the Apex Court in case of K Subbarayadu and others (supra)

and has urged that the practical difficulty of the appellants

needs to be born in mind. He has further urged that this Court

in Civil Application No.1 of 2019 in First Appeal No.8076 of 2019

has also condoned the huge delay in bringing the heirs of the

Land Reference Court on record. He has further pointed out that

sufficient cause as mentioned in the provision as per the

decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of S.Ganeshraju (D)

Thr. L.Rs.& Another vs. Narasamma (D) Thr. L.Rs. &

others,reported in 2012 (4) Scale 152 shall need to be given a

liberal meaning. There are fair chances to succeed in the appeal

and the plight of the agriculturist shall be considered

sympathetically. He has urged that he has already paid the price

for his not having approached this Court well within time, as per

the said decision of the Apex Court where he may not claim the

interest for the delayed period.

6.      Learned         Assistant     Government          Pleader,     Ms.      Dhwani





      C/CA/2359/2022                             ORDER DATED: 30/09/2022

Tripathi has strongly objected to this on the ground that the

delay is huge and there is no sufficient explanation. He has

further urged that the phrases used are standard and do not

indicate anything in particulars with regard to the conditions of

the applicants, the Court may not condone the delay when delay

of each day needs to be explained by the party.

7. Having heard learned advocates on both the sides and also

having taken into consideration the explanation, this Court

noticed that the judgment and order of the Reference Court

dated 21.02.2013 where of course there is a some rise in the

amount of compensation. The applicants are before this Court

indicating that for the very village the sale instances of Rs.75 per

square meters for irrigated land. It is also matter of record that

the land has been acquired in the year 2000 and the applicants

being the agriculturist would have no other means to sustain

themselves. In that circumstances, they have pleaded their

inability to pay the Court fees in each case.

8. Being alive to the decision of the Apex Court and also in

case of State of Nagaland vs. Lipok AO and others, reported in

2005 3 SCC 752 which says that Section 5 of the Limitation Act

shall have to be liberally construed so as to do substantial

C/CA/2359/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2022

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.

9. The Apex Court in case of K Subbarayadu and others

(supra) was also dealing with Land Acquisition Cases where it

held that the acquisition of the land the lifeline of the

agriculturist is lost. There may be omissions on the part of the

claimants to adopt extra vigilance; but same need not be used as

a ground to depict them as not having bona-fide or to treat the

same as a negligent act. The Court ought to adopt a pragmatic

approach so far as the Land Acquisition matters are concerned,

for awarding just and reasonable compensation.

10. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in case

of Dhiraj Singh (D) Thr. Lrs. vs. Haryana State and Ors, reported

in 2014 9 Scale 441 the Apex Court struck the balance by

denying the appellants' interest for the period for which they did

not approach the Court. Apt would be to reproduce the findings

and observations of the Apex Court in this regard:

C/CA/2359/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2022

"12. In fact, in a matter arising out of the same notification, in Civil Appeal Nos.617-619 of 2012, this Court had rendered a judgment dated 17.1.2012 condoning the delay of 4644 days and enhancing the compensation to Rs.200/- per square yard. A perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents makes it clear that the rate of Rs.200/- per sq. yard fixed in Horam's case (LPA No.920 of 1994) has been upheld by this Court by dismissing the special leave petition against the said judgment. A perusal of the said order makes it clear that it relied upon dismissal orders passed in various other special leave petitions whereby the aforesaid rate had been upheld.

13. Thus, in almost all cases, the rate of Rs.200/- per sq. yard has been applied by the High Court and this Court.

14. The appellants are identically situated and there is no reason to meet out a different trcatment to them. We also note that, while in these cases, the High Court had refused to condone the delay and dismissed the LPAs of the appellants, other LPAs were allowed by the High Court itself by condoning the delay of the same magnitude in the same circumstances."

C/CA/2359/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2022

11. This Court also in Civil Application No.1 of 2019 in First

Appeal No.8076 of 2019 relying of the decision of the Apex Court

rendered in case of Banwari Lal vs. Balbir Singh, reported in

2016 (1) SCC 607 and considering the peculiar facts and

circumstances allowed the application by condoning the delay of

4175 days in bringing the heirs on the record.

12. As can be noted from the version given by the applicants

that they are agriculturist, who have lost their land in the year

2000 and their sale instance of the very village also has provided

them the cause to approach this Court. The delay is also well

explained of their not having the sufficient means. It is quite