Gujarat High Court
Legal Heirs Of Karansinhji Harisinhji ... vs The State Government on 9 September, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1985/2023 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1985 of
2023
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2933 of 2017
==========================================================
LEGAL HEIRS OF KARANSINHJI HARISINHJI CHAUHAN & ORS.
Versus
THE STATE GOVERNMENT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HEMANT MAKWANA(3622) for the Applicant(s) No.
1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,1.7,1.8
MS VS PATHAK(2831) for the Applicant(s) No.
1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,1.7,1.8
MS. DHWANI R. TRIPATHI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 09/09/2024
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 44 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 filed against the judgment
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1985/2023 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2024
undefined
and order dated 19.42017 passed by the learned Principle
Senior Civil Judge, Palanpur in LAR No.2178 of 1998.
4. 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
compensation, if any, for the delay period.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader while
opposing this application, would submit that delay is not
sufficiently explained and therefore, present application
may be dismissed.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1985/2023 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2024
undefined
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1985/2023 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2024
undefined
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
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 application seeking
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1985/2023 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2024
undefined
condonation of delay deserves 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, 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)
MANISH MISHRA
