Gujarat High Court
Parmar (Pagi) Kantiji Kohyaji vs State Of Gujarat on 10 June, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1657/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/06/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1657 of
2024
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 9332 of 2024
==========================================================
PARMAR (PAGI) KANTIJI KOHYAJI & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MANISH S SHAH(5859) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MS.DHWANI TRIPATHI AGP ADVANCE COPY SERVED for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 10/06/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. Learned AGP waives service of notice of
Rule for the respondent - State.
2. By way of present application filed under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the applicants have
prayed to condone delay of 417 days caused in preferring
captioned First Appeal on the reasons stated in the
application.
3. Learned advocate for the applicants submits that
the captioned First Appeal is arising out of the Land
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1657/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/06/2024
undefined
Acquisition Reference (LAR) Case No.12 of 2020. It is
further submitted that the present applicants are
agriculturist and unaware of the provisions of law, which
could permit them 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 compensation, if
any, for the delay period.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader while
opposing this application, would submit that delay is not
sufficiently explained and therefore, present application
may be dismissed.
5. 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:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1657/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/06/2024
undefined
"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
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."
6. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1657/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/06/2024
undefined
(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."
7. 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 application seeking
condonation of delay deserves consideration. However, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1657/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/06/2024
undefined
claimant(s) would not be entitled to claim interest on the
enhanced amount of compensation, if any, during the
delay period.
8. In the result, present Application is allowed and
delay caused in preferring captioned First Appeal is hereby
condoned. However it is made clear that the applicants
shall waive the claim of interest for the period of delay
caused in preferring the First Appeal on enhanced amount
of award if any. Rule is made absolute. No order as to
costs.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
MANOJ
