Gujarat High Court
Karansinh Jilubha Jadeja vs State Of Gujarat on 3 March, 2023
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
C/CA/264/2023 ORDER DATED: 03/03/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 264 of 2023
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 22234 of 2021
==========================================================
KARANSINH JILUBHA JADEJA
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 654 days which has occurred in preferring
First Appeal against the impugned judgment and award passed
by learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Jamnagar dated
01.03.2018 in LAR No. 349 of 1996 (main LAR No. 344 of
1996).
C/CA/264/2023 ORDER DATED: 03/03/2023
4. Learned Advocate Mr. Satta would emphasize on
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.
C/CA/264/2023 ORDER DATED: 03/03/2023
reported in 2014 (14) SCC 127 relied upon by the learned
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 :
C/CA/264/2023 ORDER DATED: 03/03/2023
"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
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
C/CA/264/2023 ORDER DATED: 03/03/2023
applications deserve consideration.
12. Delay of delay of 654 days which has occurred in
preferring First Appeal against the impugned judgment and
award passed by learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Jamnagar dated 01.03.2018 in LAR No. 349 of 1996 (main LAR
No. 344 of 1996), 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/7
