Gujarat High Court

Punabhai Bijalbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 1 May, 2024

                                                                                  NEUTRAL CITATION




     C/CA/2323/2024                                ORDER DATED: 01/05/2024

                                                                                  undefined




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 2323 of
                            2024
                      In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 34406 of 2023
================================================================
                         PUNABHAI BIJALBHAI & ORS.
                                  Versus
                         STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR KRUSHNAKANT D PATEL(10632) for the Applicant(s) No.
1,2,3,4,4.1,4.2,4.3,4.4,4.5,5,6,7,8
MR TEJAS P SATTA(3149) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR MEET THAKKAR, AGP ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GOVERNMENT
PLEADER/PP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI

                               Date : 01/05/2024
                                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/2323/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2024

undefined

4. Learned advocate for the applicants places on record the

copy of the order dated 08.02.2024 passed in Civil Application

(For Condonation of Delay) No.684 of 2024 in F/First Appeal

No.34401 of 2023 by this Court, which is taken on record. It is

submitted that the present First Appeal is arising out of the

judgment dated 03.04.2018 and decree dated 09.04.2018 passed

in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.492 of 1996 in group

of LAR Nos.227 to 243 of 1995 and 488 to 492 of 1996. It is

further submitted that aforesaid order dated 08.02.2024 is

arising out of Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.490 of

1996, which is of the same group that has been referred

hereinabove.

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 were 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/2323/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2024

undefined

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 for 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.

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/2323/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2024

undefined

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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/2323/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2024

undefined

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 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-

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/2323/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2024

undefined

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 regard to the statement made by learned advocate

for the applicants, upon instructions and as per the decision of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of K. Subbaryadu & Ors