Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Manshanker Purnashanker Sompura ... on 3 March, 2023
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
C/CA/2827/2020 ORDER DATED: 03/03/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2827 of 2020
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 9413 of 2020
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
MANSHANKER PURNASHANKER SOMPURA (DECEASED)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TRUPESH KATHIRIYA, AGP for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
for the Respondent(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6
DECEASED LITIGANT for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 03/03/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.
Trupesh Kathiriya on behalf of the applicant-State and
learned Advocate Mr. Nirav Sanghvi on behalf of the legal
heirs of the deceased respondents.
2. By way of these application, the applicant prays for
condoning delay of 615 days which has occurred in
preferring First Appeals against common judgment and
award passed by learned Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Dhrangadhra dated 26.03.2018 in Land Reference Cases
No. 391 of 2011, respectively.
C/CA/2827/2020 ORDER DATED: 03/03/2023
4. Learned AGP Mr. Kathiriya would emphasize on
averments made in Para No. 4 of the applications and
would submit that since the same reflect sufficient cause
being made out for condoning the delay, this Court may
consider these applications and condoned the delay which
has occurred in filing the First Appeals.
5. Learned AGP Mr. Kathiriya 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. Sheth 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 applicants-
C/CA/2827/2020 ORDER DATED: 03/03/2023
appellants 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 Advocate for the
applicants.
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
C/CA/2827/2020 ORDER DATED: 03/03/2023
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 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
C/CA/2827/2020 ORDER DATED: 03/03/2023
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
C/CA/2827/2020 ORDER DATED: 03/03/2023
for condonation of delay is required to be considered
liberally and further having regard to the statement made
by learned AGP Mr. Kathiriya 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.
12. Delay of 615 days which has occurred in preferring
First Appeals challenging the common judgment and
award passed by learned Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Dhrangadhra dated 26.03.2018 in Land Reference Cases
No. 391 of 2011 respectively, is hereby condoned.
13. With these observations and direction, the present
Civil Applications stand allowed. Rule is made absolute to
the aforesaid extent.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
SHRIJIT PILLAI
