Rameshbhai Bachubhai vs State Of Gujarat
2023 Latest Caselaw 2033 Guj

     C/CA/274/2023                                  ORDER DATED: 03/03/2023




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                     R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 274 of 2023

                     In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 29431 of 2021

==========================================================
                          RAMESHBHAI BACHUBHAI
                                  Versus
                            STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KRUSHNAKANT D PATEL(10632) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR TEJAS P SATTA(3149) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR TRUPESH KATHIRIYA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL

                              Date : 03/03/2023

                                 ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Tejas Satta on behalf of the applicant and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Trupesh Kathiriya on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. Rule. Learned AGP waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. By way of this application, the applicant prays for condoning delay of 703 days which has occurred in preferring First Appeal against the impugned judgment and award passed by learned 13th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Jamnagar dated 17.03.2018 in LAR No. 174 of 2007.

4.   Learned          Advocate    Mr.    Satta    would      emphasize             on





      C/CA/274/2023                          ORDER DATED: 03/03/2023

averments made in the application and would submit that sufficient cause being made out for condoning the delay, this Court may consider this application and condoned the delay which has occurred in filing the First Appeal.

5. Learned Advocate Mr. Satta on behalf of the applicant has relied upon a decision of this Court dated 05.01.2023 in Civil Application ( For Condonation of Delay) No. 1 of 2022 in F/ First Appeal No. 36932 of 2022 and allied matters whereby this Court relying upon decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had condoned the delay of 967 days which had occurred in preferring First Appeals.

6. Learned Advocate Mr. Satta would also emphasize on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of K. Subbarayadu & Ors vs. The Special Deputy Collector, (Land Acquisition) reported in 2017 (12) SCC 840 and would submit that considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the applicant-appellant would also waive their right to claim for interest upon enhanced compensation, if any, during the period of delay.

7. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the documents on record and also perused the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs. Msr. Katji and Ors. reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353 and Dhiraj Singh (Dead) Through Legal Heirs Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. reported in 2014 (14) SCC 127 relied upon by the learned

C/CA/274/2023 ORDER DATED: 03/03/2023

Advocate for the applicant.

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag (supra) has observed as thus :

"1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.

2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.

4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.

5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.

6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so."

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Dhiraj Singh (supra) has observed as thus :

"we can take judicial notice of the fact that villagers in our country

C/CA/274/2023 ORDER DATED: 03/03/2023

are by and large illiterate and are not conversant with the intricacies of law. They are usually guided by their covillagers, who are familiar with the proceedings in the Courts or the advocates with whom they get in touch for redressal of their grievance. Affidavits filed in support of the applications for condonation of delay are usually drafted by the advocates on the basis of half-baked information made available by the affected persons. Therefore, in the acquisition matters involving claim for award of just compensation, the Court should adopt a liberal approach and either grant time to the party to file better affidavit to explain delay or suo motu take cognizance of the fact that large number of other similarly situated persons who were affected by the determination of compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer, or the Reference Court have been granted relief." In Samiyathal v. Tahsildar deciced on 5-7-2013, this Court took cognizance of the fact that many landowners may not have been able to seek intervention of this Court for grant of enhanced compensation due to illiteracy, poverty and ignorance and issued direction that those who have not filed special leave petition should be given enhanced compensation."

10. Furthermore, this Court also relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of K. Subbarayudu and Ors. (supra), whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court has inter alia condoned delay considering the submission on part of the claimant therein that he would not claim interest on the enhanced amount for the delay period.

11. Having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, more particularly whereby an application for condonation of delay is required to be considered liberally and further having regard to the statement made by learned Advocate Mr. Vaghela upon instructions as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of K. Subbaryadu & Ors (supra), in the considered opinion of this Court, the applications deserve consideration.

C/CA/274/2023 ORDER DATED: 03/03/2023

12. Delay of 703 days which has occurred in preferring First Appeal against the impugned judgment and award passed by learned 13th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Jamnagar dated 17.03.2018 in LAR No. 174 of 2007, is hereby condoned, subject to the condition that the applicant(s)-claimant(s) shall not claim interest upon enhanced compensation, if any, for the period of delay.

13. With these observations and direction, the present Civil Application stand allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) SALIM/9