Sandhi Jamat Ranparda Through ... vs The State Of Gujarat
2024 Latest Caselaw 1241 Guj

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 1241 Guj
Judgement Date : 13 February, 2024

Gujarat High Court

Sandhi Jamat Ranparda Through ... vs The State Of Gujarat on 13 February, 2024

                                                                                     NEUTRAL CITATION




       C/CA/772/2024                                ORDER DATED: 13/02/2024

                                                                                     undefined




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
     R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 772 of
                                2024

                       In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 34383 of 2023
================================================================
SANDHI JAMAT RANPARDA THROUGH ADMINISTRATOR MAMAD MUSA
                         Versus
                  THE STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR KRUSHNAKANT D PATEL(10632) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS KIRAN UDASI for MR TEJAS P SATTA(3149) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
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 : 13/02/2024
                                 ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appears on

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

State.

2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

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

Limitation Act, 1963, the applicants have prayed to condone

delay of 1233 days caused in preferring captioned First Appeal

on the reasons stated in the application.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/772/2024 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2024

undefined

4. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that in

similar group of Land Acquisition Reference Cases, the delay

has been granted by this Court, the copy of order dated

08.02.2024 is placed on record and the same is taken on record.

Learned advocate for the applicant has further submitted that the

applicant is not much literate and he is poor agriculturist. He has

further submitted that the applicant was not aware about the

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

Appeal within limitation. Learned advocate for the applicant

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.

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

learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Aditya D. Davda for

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/772/2024 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2024

undefined

respondent-State by making submission that delay has not

sufficiently been explained and whereas under such

circumstances, the application may not be considered by this

Court.

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. 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.

7. 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/772/2024 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2024

undefined

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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/772/2024 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2024

undefined

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."

8. 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/772/2024 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2024

undefined

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."

9. Furthermore, this Court also relies upon the decision of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in case of K. Subbarayudu and Ors.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/772/2024 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2024

undefined

(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.

10. 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