Gujarat High Court
Kanji Mandanbhai Meghani vs State Of Gujarat on 18 January, 2023
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
C/CA/3219/2022 ORDER DATED: 18/01/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3219 of 2022
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 24312 of 2022
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3220 of 2022
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3221 of 2022
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3222 of 2022
==========================================================
KANJI MANDANBHAI MEGHANI
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
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR PRANAV DHAGAT, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 18/01/2023
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Nitin M. Amin for the applicants and
learned AGP Mr. Pranav Dhagat for the respondent-State in all the
applications.
2. Issue Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP waives service of
notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State.
3. By way of these applications preferred under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 the applicants pray for condoning the delay of 581
C/CA/3219/2022 ORDER DATED: 18/01/2023
days occurred in preferring appeals, challenging the common judgement and
award dated 03.10.2018 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Junagadh in Land Reference Case Nos. 493 of 2006, 494 of 2006, 495 of
2006 and 496 of 2006 respectively.
4. At the outset, learned Advocate Mr. Amin for the applicants would
draw the attention of this Court to an order passed by a learned Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court (Coram : Ms. Sangeeta K. Vishen, J) in Civil
Application No. 3223 of 2022 in F/First Appeal No. 24316 of 2022, dated
07.12.2022, whereby in a cognate matter, the learned Co-ordinate Bench had
condoned the delay of 581 days. Learned Advocate Mr. Amin would submit
that first appeals in which the present applicants have been preferred, and
the first appeal in which the delay had been condoned by the learned Co-
ordinate Bench, challenge the very selfsame decision of the learned Civil
Court (Reference Court), Junagadh in a group of Land Reference Cases
dated 03.10.2018. Such a position could not be disputed by learned AGP
Mr. Dhagat.
5. Having regard to the said position and for the reasons stated by the
learned Co-ordinate Bench in the said decision, the delay of 581 days, which
has occurred in preferring the first appeals, is required to be condoned.
Paragraphs No. 6 to 9 of the said decision of the learned Co-ordinate Bench
C/CA/3219/2022 ORDER DATED: 18/01/2023
being relevant for the present purpose are quoted hereinbelow and are relied
upon by this Court:
"6. Pertinently, it is not in dispute that the possession of the land of
the applicants was taken before 10 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
03.10.2018; followed by deposit of the amount of compensation;
further followed by the applications by the applicants seeking
disbursement. It is not in dispute that the application for
disbursement has been allowed recently and it is only after the
applicant could manage the funds that the appeal has been filed. It is
nobody's case that applicant has not taken any steps and after long
years has woken up from the slumber, that the appeals have been
filed.
7. From the averments made in the application, it is clear that the
applicant, has been vigilant enough to pursue the remedy and
therefore the present appeal. This Court, in the case of Mansurbhai
Mulubhai v. (State of Gujarat) Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition
and Rehabilitation (Irrigation) Officer (supra) 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
C/CA/3219/2022 ORDER DATED: 18/01/2023
respondents are able to show malafide in not approaching the Court
within limitation, generally, as a normal rule, the delay should be
condoned.
9. In the present case, the applicant has been able to offer sufficient
explanation in support of the delay of 581 days occurred in preferring
the appeal inasmuch as the applicant was out of funds and therefore,
no steps could be taken. The delay which has been caused is bonafide
and not that the applicant has been buying away the time and not
taking any steps."
6. Having regard to the reasons set out by the learned Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court, the delay of 581 days in preferring the first appeals are
hereby condoned. The present applications stand disposed of as allowed.
Rule is made absolute.
7. Registry to list the first appeals on 31.01.2023.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
BDSONGARA
