Gujarat High Court
Lh Of Decd Kanabi Jodhabhai ... vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 8 September, 2023
Bench: J. C. Doshi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/767/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 767 of 2023
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 378 of 2022
==========================================================
LH OF DECD KANABI JODHABHAI KARAMSHIBHAI
Versus
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KRUSHNAKANT D PATEL(10632) for the Applicant(s) No.
1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6
MS KIRAN UDASI FOR MR TEJAS P SATTA(3149) for the Applicant(s) No.
1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6
MR ADITYA DAVDA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 08/09/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of present application filed u/s 5 of the Limitation
Act, the applicant has prayed to condone delay of 1347 days
caused in preferring captioned First Appeal on the reasons
stated in the application.
2. Learned advocate Mr. Tejas Satta for the applicant would
submit that they present applicant is a village person and he is
unaware of the provisions of law, which could permit him to file
appeal, which is a statutory right. He has produced decision of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of K. Subbarayadu and others
Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) reported in
2017(12) SCC 840 and would submit that considering the law
laid down in aforementioned case, the applicant is not claiming
his right for the interest upon the enhanced compensation, if
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/767/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2023
undefined
any, for the delay period.
3. Learned AGP while opposing this application, would
submit that delay is not sufficiently explained and therefore,
present application may be dismissed.
4. 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, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as
under:-
"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 con-
doned 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."
5. With profit, I may also refer judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/767/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2023
undefined
Court in case of Dhiraj Singh (Dead) Through Legal Heirs Vs.
State of Haryana and Ors. reported in 2014 (14) SCC 127,
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed 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 halfbaked 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 decided 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."
6. Applying the ratio of aforestated judgment in background
of the facts of the present case as well as considering the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of K. Subbarayadu
(supra), the application seeking condonation of delay deserves
consideration. However, the claimant would not be entitled to
claim interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, if any,
during the delay period.
7. In the result, present Application is allowed and delay of
1347 days caused in preferring captioned First Appeal is hereby
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/767/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2023
undefined
condoned on condition that the applicant - original claimant
shall not be entitled to claim interest on the enhanced amount of
compensation for the period from the date of judgment till filing
of this application i.e. from 30.06.2016 to 03.01.2022. Rule is
made absolute.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SATISH
