Jiviben Popatbhai vs The State Of Gujarat
2024 Latest Caselaw 1143 Guj

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 1143 Guj
Judgement Date : 9 February, 2024

Gujarat High Court

Jiviben Popatbhai vs The State Of Gujarat on 9 February, 2024

                                                                                    NEUTRAL CITATION




       C/CA/723/2024                                ORDER DATED: 09/02/2024


                                                                                     undefined




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
     R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 723 of
                                2024
                       In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3065 of 2024
================================================================
                              JIVIBEN POPATBHAI
                                    Versus
                            THE STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR KRUSHNAKANT D PATEL(10632) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
MR TEJAS P SATTA(3149) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR ADITYA D DAVDA ,AGP ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GOVERNMENT
PLEADER/PP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI

                                Date : 09/02/2024
                                 ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appears on

advance copy, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent-

State.

2. Learned advocate for the applicants places on record the

copy of the order dated 14.07.2023 passed in Civil Application

(For Condonation of Delay) No.1 of 2023 in F/First Appeal

No.6240 of 2023 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, which is

taken on record.

3. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

4. By way of present application filed under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act, 1963, the applicants have prayed to condone delay

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/723/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2024

undefined

of 1315 days caused in preferring captioned First Appeal on the

reasons stated in the application.

5. Learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that the

applicants are not much literate and they are poor agriculturists.

He has further submitted that the applicants was not aware about

the procedure of the Court of law which could enable them to file

Appeal within limitation. Learned advocate for the applicants

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-appellants would also

waive their right to claim for interest upon enhanced

compensation, if any, during the period of delay.

6. Per contra, this application is vehemently opposed by the

learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Aditya D. Davda for

respondent-State by making submission that delay has not

sufficiently been explained and whereas under such

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/723/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2024

undefined

circumstances, the application may not be considered by this

Court.

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 not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/723/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2024

undefined

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."

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 halfbaked information made available by the affected persons. Therefore, in the acquisition matters involving claim for award of just

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/723/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2024

undefined

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."

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 claimants therein that

they 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/723/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2024

undefined