Gujarat High Court
Patel Laxmiben Wd/O Valabhai Bera ... vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 20 March, 2023
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
C/CA/301/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/03/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 301 of 2023
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4055 of 2022
==========================================================
PATEL LAXMIBEN WD/O VALABHAI BERA SINCE DECD THROUGH
HEIRS
Versus
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
==========================================================
Appearance:
for the Applicant(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3
MR AV PRAJAPATI(672) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,1.4,1.5,1.6
MR AKASH CHHAYA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 20/03/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. A.V.Prajapati on behalf of
the applicants and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.
Akash Chhaya 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 applicants pray for
condoning delay of 1418 days which has occurred in
preferring First Appeals against common judgment and award
passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Patan dated
C/CA/301/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/03/2023
27.01.2016 in Land Reference Cases No. 1785/2006,
1789/2006 and 1790/2006.
4. Learned Advocate Mr. Prajapati would emphasize on
averments made in Para No. 3 of the application and would
submit that since the same reflect 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. Prajapati on behalf of the
applicants 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. Prajapati 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
C/CA/301/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/03/2023
Hon'ble Supreme Court, the applicants-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 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
C/CA/301/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/03/2023
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 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
C/CA/301/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/03/2023
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. Prajapati 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
application deserve consideration.
C/CA/301/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/03/2023
12. Delay of 1418 days which has occurred in preferring
First Appeal challenging the common judgment and award
passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Patan dated
27.01.2016 in Land Reference Cases No. 1785/2006,
1789/2006 and 1790/2006, is hereby condoned, subject to the
condition that the applicants-claimants 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)
Bhoomi
