Gujarat High Court
Patel Arvindbhai Chhaganbhai vs State Of Gujarat Through Dist ... on 20 April, 2023
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
C/CA/426/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 426 of 2023
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3407 of 2021
==========================================================
PATEL ARVINDBHAI CHHAGANBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH DIST COLLECTOR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MANISH S SHAH(5859) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,2.1,2.2,2.3,2.4
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR AKASH CHHAYA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 20/04/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.Akash Chhaya, learned AGP
waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent - State.
2. Heard Mr.Manish S. Shah, learned advocate for the
applicants and Mr. Akash Chhaya, learned AGP for the
respondent-State.
3. The present application under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act is preferred to condone the delay of 2621 days which has
occurred in preferring First Appeal to assail the impugned
judgment and award of the Trial Court.
C/CA/426/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2023
4. Mr. Manish S. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the
applicants reiterated the averments made in the application
for condonation of delay and submitted that due to a number
of reasons like burden of paying outstanding dues in the
market, demonetization, short of money to pay the Court fees
to file the present appeal, pandemic of Covid-19, and due to
some time spent in getting proper legal advice resulted delay
of 2621 days in preferring the First Appeal. He further
submits that the applicants 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. Mr. Manish S. Shah, learned advocate for the applicants
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
C/CA/426/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2023
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. As against this, Mr. Akash Chhaya, learned AGP has
vehemently opposed the aforesaid application for condonation
of delay and submitted that the delay is not properly
explained by the applicants in the application for condonation
of delay. He submitted that the applicants' ignorance cannot
be treated as a ground to condone the delay. The applicants
could have file the appeal well within time as an indigenous
persons if they had no money to pay the Court fees and
therefore the grounds stated in the application cannot be said
to be sufficient ground to condone the delay and requests for
dismissal of present application for condonation of delay of
2621 days.
7. This Court has given its 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 2621 days.
C/CA/426/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2023
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 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 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".
C/CA/426/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2023
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 applicants are willing and ready
to forgo the interest on enhanced compensation and the
statutory benefits flowing on the enhanced compensation for
the period of delay, if the appeal is allowed, this Court is of
the opinion that the delay needs to be condoned.
10. For the foregoing reasons, the application is allowed and
delay of 2621 days caused in preferring first appeal is hereby
condoned on condition that the applicants shall not entitle to
C/CA/426/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2023
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.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
Bhoomi
