Gujarat High Court
Urmilaben Wd/O Manchhabhai Prajapati vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 9 April, 2025
Author: Sangeeta K. Vishen
Bench: Sangeeta K. Vishen
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1775/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1775 of
2025
In F/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5799 of 2025
==========================================================
URMILABEN WD/O MANCHHABHAI PRAJAPATI & ORS.
Versus
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KRUSHNAKANT D PATEL(10632) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
MR TEJAS P SATTA(3149) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
MS FORAM TRIVEDI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
Date : 09/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN)
1. The captioned applications are filed for condonation of delay
of 887 days in preferring the restoration application, seeking
restoration of the appeal against the impugned judgment and
decree dated 30.08.2017.
2. Issue Rule returnable forthwith. Ms Foram Trivedi, learned
Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule on
behalf of respondent-State.
3. Mr Tejas P. Satta, learned Advocate for the applicants regrets
that as assured before this Court, within the time provided, the
office objections could not be removed. It is submitted that the
applicants are villagers and not much aware about the nuances of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1775/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
the legal proceedings and the consequences of non-removal of the
office objections. Mr Satta, learned Advocate states that the first
appeal arising out of the judgment under challenge preferred by the
State has been admitted by this Court. It is urged that the delay be
condoned and the applicants-claimants would not claim interest for
the delay caused in preferring the captioned application so also the
civil application preferred for condoning the delay in preferring the
first appeal.
4. Ms Foram Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader
states that the delay is huge and the explanation offered of non-
removal of office objection of non-submission of relevant papers is
not sufficient; however, since the applicants-claimants have agreed
for waiving the interest portion for the delayed period, appropriate
orders be passed.
5. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective
parties.
6. The captioned application is filed seeking condonation of
delay of 887 days in preferring the application seeking restoration of
the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2017. It is
stated that time was granted and office objections were to be
removed within a period of fifteen days from the date of passing of
the order; however, could not be removed, inter alia, owing to the
non-supply of various documents. Mr Satta, learned Advocate has
stated before this Court that the office objections shall be removed
at the earliest and latest by two weeks. Accepting the explanation
offered, this Court, is of the opinion that delay of 887 days caused
in filing the application for restoration deserves to be condoned and
is hereby condoned.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1775/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
7. Civil application succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Rule is
made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
8. Needless to clarify that the claimants shall not claim interest
for the delayed period, if the appeal/s were to be allowed.
9. The copy of the order be placed in the papers of the
respective First Appeal/s.
(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J)
(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J)
RAVI P. PATEL
