Gujarat High Court
Patel Natvarbhai Amthabhai Since ... vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 2 April, 2025
Author: Sangeeta K. Vishen
Bench: Sangeeta K. Vishen
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1579/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1579 of
2025
In F/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 6454 of 2025
==========================================================
PATEL NATVARBHAI AMTHABHAI SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LEGAL
HEIRS & ORS.
Versus
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AV PRAJAPATI(672) for the Applicant(s) No.
1,1.1,1.2,1.2.1,1.2.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.5.1,1.5.2,1.5.3,1.6,2
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
Date : 02/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN)
1. The captioned application, has been filed seeking
condonation of delay of 2124 days caused in preferring the
captioned Cross Objection, whereby the challenge is to the
judgment and award dated 28.12.2017 passed by the learned
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana in Land Acquisition
Reference No.367 of 2013 and other allied matters.
2. Issue Rule, returnable forthwith. Ms Foram Trivedi,
learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of
notice of Rule on behalf of respondent no.1.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1579/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
3. Mr.A.V. Prajapati learned advocate for the applicants,
has submitted that the delay is huge; however, it was owning
to the status of the claimants, and the understanding on their
part, no steps could be taken. It is submitted that the First
Appeal arising out of the self-same judgment, has been filed
and admitted by this Court. Even the delay, which was of
similar quantum, has been condoned. Reliance is placed on
the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ningappa
Thotappa Angadi Dead Through Lrs. vs. The Special Land
Acquisition Officer & Another reported in (2020) 19 SCC 599.
Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of K.
Subbarayudu & Others vs. Special Deputy Collector (Land
Acquisition) reported in (2017) 12 SCC 840. It is submitted
that the claimants, are ready and willing to waive the part of
the interest if this Court, were to dismiss the Appeal and allow
the Cross Objection filed for the delayed period. It is,
therefore, urged that the application may kindly be allowed.
4. Ms Foram Trivedi, learned Assistant Government
Pleader, on the other hand, states that, in similar matters, this
Court, has been kind enough to condone the delay. It is
submitted that the claimants, since have assured that they
shall not claim interest on the enhanced amount of
compensation if this Court were to dismiss the appeal and
allow the Cross Objection, appropriate orders be passed.
5. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1579/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
6. No doubt, it is true that the delay of 2124 days. The
claimants, have declared before this Court that they shall not
claim interest for the delayed period on the enhanced amount
of compensation if this Court were to dismiss the appeal of the
State Government and allow the Cross Objections of the
applicant.
7. In the case of Ningappa Thotappa Angadi Dead Through
Lrs. vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer & Another
(supra), the Apex Court, has held and observed that if the
claimants are identically situated, there is no reason to meet
out a different treatment to them. It has been held and
observed that if there is a huge delay, equities can be
balanced by denying the claimants interest for the period for
which they did not approach the Court. The substantive rights
of the appellants should not be allowed to be defeated on
technical grounds by taking hypertechnical view of self-
imposed limitations. In the matter of compensation for land
acquisition, the approach of the Court has to be pragmatic
and not pedantic. Paragraphs 8 to 11 are reproduced
hereinbelow for ready reference.
"8. We find that the issue raised in this appeal is no longer
res-integra. This Court in Dhiraj Singh (Dead) through LRs.
and Others v. State of Haryana and Others held that:
"14. The appellants are identically situated and
there is no reason to meet out a different
treatment to them. We also note that, while in
these cases, the High Court had refused to
condone the delay and dismissed the LPAs of the
appellants, other LPAs were allowed by the High
Court itself by condoning the delay of the same
magnitude in the same circumstances.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1579/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
15. Equities can be balanced by denying the
appellants' interest for the period for which they
did not approach the Court. The substantive rights
of the appellants should not be allowed to be
defeated on technical grounds by taking
hypertechnical view of self-imposed limitations. In
the matter of compensation for land acquisition,
we are of the view that approach of the Court has
to be pragmatic and not pedantic.
[Emphasis applied]
9. The afore-cited view has been consistently followed by
this Court in a series of cases before and after the decision
in Dhiraj Singh's (dead) case (supra). In Imrat Lal & Ors. v.
Land Acquisition Collector & Ors. 2, 1(2014) 14 SCC 127 2
2014 14 SCC 133 it was observed that the delay in filing the
Special Leave Petition cannot be the reason to deny just and
fair compensation to the claimants. This Court observed
that a liberal approach should be adopted in such like
matters. In Huchanagouda v. Assistant Commissioner and
Land Acquisition Officer3 also this Court condoned the
delay and restored parity in the matter of grant of
compensation though with a condition "that for the period
of delay in filing and in refiling the Special Leave Petitions,
the appellant-claimant(s) shall not be entitled to any
interest on the enhanced compenation and statutory
amount."
10. It is undeniable that this Court vide judgment dated
November 11, 2016 passed in C.A. No. 2927/2010
(Ningappa Thotappa Angadi v. Special Land Acquisition
Officer & Anr.) has set aside the order of the High Court
and restored the compensation as was awarded by the
Reference Court. In the cited case, this Court held as
follows:
"We have heard the learned counsel for the parties
to some length and carefully perused the material
on record. We are of the considered opinion that the
impugned judgment and order of the High Court
deserves to be set aside and judgment and order
passed by the Reference Court restored. We say so
because, this Court has in a similar appeal directed
against the very same order set aside the impugned
judgment and restored the enhancement granted by
the Reference Court. We see no reason to take a
different view in the present case. We, accordingly,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1579/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
allow this appeal and while setting aside the
impugned judgment insofar as the same relates to
the appellant, restore the judgment and order
passed by the Reference Court. The parties shall,
however, bear their own costs."
11. The appellant(s) are also similarly placed claimants.
They are, thus, 3 2019 SCC Online SC 990 entitled to seek
parity and claim the same amount of fair and just
compensation as has been awarded to other land owners.
The appellant(s) are, however, not entitled to seek interest
for the period for which they did not approach this Court."
8. Also, in the case of K. Subbarayudu & Others vs. Special
Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) (supra), the Apex Court,
has pointed out that the term "sufficient cause" is to receive
liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, when
no negligence, inaction or want of bona fides is attributable to
the appellants, the Court should adopt a justice-oriented
approach in condoning the delay. It has also been held and
observed that with the acquisition of lands, the lifeline of the
agriculturist is lost. There may be omission on the part of the
claimants to adopt extra vigilance; but the same need not be
used as a ground to depict them with negligence or want of
bona fides. In case of acquisition of lands of agriculturists, the
courts ought to adopt a pragmatic approach to award just and
reasonable compensation and not be pedantic in their
approach. Paragraphs 11 to 13 are set out hereinbelow for
ready reference.
"11. The term "sufficient cause" is to receive liberal
construction so as to advance substantial justice, when no
negligence, inaction or want of bona fide is attributable to
the appellants, the Court should adopt a justice-oriented
approach in condoning the delay. In State of Nagaland v.
Lipok AO, it was held as under:- (SCC p.757, para 8)
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1579/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
"8. ....Section 5 is to be construed liberally so as to do
substantial justice to the parties. The provision
contemplates that the court has to go into the
position of the person concerned and to find out if the
delay can be said to have been resulted from the
cause which he had adduced and whether the cause
recorded in the peculiar circumstances of the case is
sufficient".
12. With the acquisition of lands, the lifeline of the
agriculturist is lost. There may be omission on the part of the
claimants to adopt extra vigilance; but same need not be
used as a ground to depict them with negligence or want of
bona fides. In case of acquisition of lands of agriculturists,
the courts ought to adopt a pragmatic approach to award
just and reasonable compensation and not pedantic in their
approach. In Dhiraj Singh v. Haryana State, it was held as
under: (SCC p.131, para 15)
"15. Equities can be balanced by denying the
appellants' interest for the period for which they did
not approach the Court. The substantive rights of the
appellants should not be allowed to be defeated on
technical grounds by taking hyper technical view of
self-imposed limitations. In the matter of compensation
for land acquisition, we are of the view that approach
of the Court has to be pragmatic and not pedantic."
13. When the concerned court has exercised its discretion
either condoning or declining to condone the delay, normally
the superior court will not interfere in exercise of such
discretion. The true guide is whether the litigant has acted
with due diligence. Since the appellants/claimants are the
agriculturists whose lands were acquired and when similar
situated agriculturists were given a higher rate of
compensation, there is no reason to decline the same to the
appellants. Merely on the ground of delay such benefit
cannot be denied to the appellants. The interest of justice
would be served by declining the interest on the enhanced
compensation and also on the solatium and other statutory
benefits for the period of delay."
9. In the identical matter i.e. Civil Application No.2076 of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1579/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
2023 in F/Cross Objection No.34353 of 2023, this Court, has
passed the order wherein, the delay of similar amount is
condoned.
10. Considering the averments made, so also the principles,
this Court, is of the opinion that the delay is sufficiently
explained and the same deserves to be condoned and is
hereby condoned.
11. Civil application succeeds and is accordingly allowed.
Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to
costs.
(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J)
(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J)
V.J. SATWARA
