Gujarat High Court
Harijan Raghubhai Khodabhai vs State Of Gujarat on 1 April, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/741/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 741 of
2024
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3186 of 2024
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 743 of 2024
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3188 of 2024
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 745 of 2024
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3279 of 2024
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 746 of 2024
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3164 of 2024
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 748 of 2024
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3185 of 2024
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 750 of 2024
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3213 of 2024
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 752 of 2024
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3187 of 2024
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 753 of 2024
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3287 of 2024
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 755 of 2024
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3177 of 2024
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 759 of 2024
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3224 of 2024
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 760 of 2024
In
Page 1 of 7
Downloaded on : Wed Apr 03 21:06:56 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/741/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2024
undefined
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3181 of 2024
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 763 of 2024
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3271 of 2024
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 766 of 2024
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3172 of 2024
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 767 of 2024
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3198 of 2024
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 768 of 2024
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3283 of 2024
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 769 of 2024
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3182 of 2024
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 777 of 2024
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3165 of 2024
==========================================================
HARIJAN RAGHUBHAI KHODABHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AV PRAJAPATI(672) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR.ADITYA DAVDA ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GOVERNMENT
PLEADER/PP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 01/04/2024
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. By way of the captioned Civil Applications filed
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the applicants
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/741/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2024
undefined
have prayed to condone delay of 610 days caused in
preferring captioned First Appeals on the reasons stated in
the application.
2. Learned advocate for the applicants submits that
the Land Reference Applications have been divided in two
groups, one of the group of the applicant and other
claimants was a group of Land Acquisition Reference Case
No.426 to 475 of 2018 which was rejected. Against which,
the original claimants have preferred present First Appeals.
It is submitted that the applicants took time for managing
the Court fees and professional fees. It is further submitted
that the delay is not intentional and there was no lethargy
on the part of the applicants.
3. Learned advocate for the applicants would
submit that the present applicants are 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 applicants are
not claiming their right for the interest upon the enhanced
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/741/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2024
undefined
compensation, if any, for the delay period.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader while
opposing these applications, would submit that delay is not
sufficiently explained and therefore, present applications
may be dismissed.
5. Opponent No.3 has filed Affidavit-in-reply dated
02nd March, 2024 in the respective Civil Applications and
objected in granting the Civil Applications.
6. 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. Mrs.
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/741/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2024
undefined
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 nondeliberate 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."
7. With profit, I may also refer judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/741/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2024
undefined
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."
8. Applying the ratio of aforestated judgment and
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 applications seeking
condonation of delay deserve consideration. However, the
claimant(s) would not be entitled to claim interest on the
enhanced amount of compensation, if any, during the
delay period.
9. In the result, captioned Civil Applications are
allowed and delay caused in preferring captioned First
Appeals are hereby condoned. However it is made clear
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/741/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2024
undefined
that the applicants shall waive the claim of interest for the
period of delay caused in preferring the captioned First
Appeals on enhanced amount of award if any. Rule is
made absolute. No order as to costs.
10. Registry shall place a copy of this order in each
matter.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
MANOJ
