Vinodbhai Vashrambhai vs Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition And ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 5992 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Vinodbhai Vashrambhai vs Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition And ... on 23 April, 2025

                                                                                                           NEUTRAL CITATION




                              C/CA/965/2025                               ORDER DATED: 23/04/2025

                                                                                                           undefined




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                      R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY)
                                        NO. 965 of 2025
                                              In
                                F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3017 of 2025
                                             With
                              R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 966 of 2025
                                              In
                                F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3409 of 2025
                                             With
                              R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 967 of 2025
                                              In
                                F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3059 of 2025
                                             With
                              R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 968 of 2025
                                              In
                                F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3065 of 2025
                                             With
                              R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 969 of 2025
                                              In
                                F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3369 of 2025
                      ======================================
                                    VINODBHAI VASHRAMBHAI
                                             Versus
                           DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION AND
                                     REHABILITATION & ANR.
                      ======================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR GM AMIN(124) for the Applicant
                      MR. M. D. RAHEVAR, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1,2
                      ======================================

                      CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE

                                                      Date : 23/04/2025

                                                 COMMON ORAL ORDER

1. Issue Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Rahevar, learned AGP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents - State Authorities.

                                                                                                      NEUTRAL CITATION




                              C/CA/965/2025                         ORDER DATED: 23/04/2025

                                                                                                     undefined

2. Heard Mr. Samarth Amin, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. G.M. Amin, learned advocate on record for the applicant and learned AGP on behalf of the respondents - State Authorities.

3. The present applications are filed at the instance of the original claimant/s seeking condonation of delay of 1798 days caused in preferring the proposed captioned appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 whereby he intend to challenge the common impugned judgment and award dated 29th November, 2019 passed in Land Reference Case nos.61 of 2004 to 73 of 2004, under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 fixing the amount of compensation on lower side.

4. Learned advocate for the applicant has referred to the averments made in the applications and has submitted that the delay is not attributable to any negligence on the part of the present applicants. It is submitted that at relevant stage, the applicants who being illiterate and not conversant with the intricacies of the law and being otherwise guided by the co-villagers have chosen not to file an appeal because of want of sufficient Court fees and professional fees. The applicants are small scale agriculturist who are mainly dependent upon agricultural income. After Covid pandemic, they were facing financial hardship. Considering the fact that the Land Acquisition Act itself is a benevolent legislation whereby the object of the Act is welfare of the people and intends to provide just and proper compensation of the acquired land, the prayer was made to condone the delay by taking liberal

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/965/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2025

undefined

approach. It was further submitted that in similar set of facts, delay has been condoned by this Court vide order dated 23rd December, 2024 passed by this Court in Civil Application (for Condonation of Delay) No.6115 of 2024 in F/First Appeal No.33997 of 2024. He has therefore urged this Court to condone delay by imposing suitable conditions.

4.1 The reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhiraj Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2014) 14 SCC 127 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 236 as well as in the case of Imrat Lal Vs. Land Acquisition Collector & Ors. (2014) 15 SCC 127, whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court had condoned huge delay and has observed that the Courts are expected to take liberal approach in matters pertaining to Land Acquisition Act. The attention of this Court was also invited to the fact that in the aforesaid matters, the ground of parity on grant of compensation was the core issue which was considered while condoning the delay.

4.2 Lastly, learned advocate has placed reliance upon the Three Judges Bench Judgment in the case of Ningappa Thotappa Angadi Dead Thr. LRs. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another, reported in (2020) 19 SCC 599.

5. On the other hand, learned AGP for the respondent - State Authorities has vehemently objected to the aforesaid submissions. Learned AGP has referred to the affidavit-in-

                                                                                                      NEUTRAL CITATION




                              C/CA/965/2025                         ORDER DATED: 23/04/2025

                                                                                                     undefined

reply affirmed by Executive Engineer (I/c.), Und Irrigation Division, Jamnagar and submitted that merely because in cognate matters this Court has enhanced the amount of compensation, the same cannot be a ground for considering condonation of the huge number of delay. The applicant was aware about the impugned judgment and award and has remained fence sitter for these years who had chose not to challenge the impugned judgment and order at an advanced stage. The attention of this Court was invited to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pathupati Subba Reddy (Died) by L.Rs. & Ors. Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) (2024 INSC 286) where the Court following the earlier judgment in the case of Basawaraj and Another Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2011) 4 SCC 316 has held that the term 'sufficient cause' means an adequate and enough reasons which prevented the applicant to approach the court within stipulated period of limitation and in the case where the party is found to be negligent or for want of bonafide or has not acted diligently or remained inactive, the same cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. It was also held that in absence of any sufficient cause being made out, the Courts are not justified in condoning the delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of two Judges Bench Judgment in case of Mool chandra Vs. Union of India, 2024 (0) AIJEL-SC 73867. He has therefore submitted that merely because the other affected land owners have succeeded in receiving the enhanced compensation, the same would not entitle the present applicants who had not approached this

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/965/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2025

undefined

Court within a stipulated period of limitation by way of appeal. Even otherwise, the merits of the case cannot be examined at the stage of condonation of delay. He has therefore objected to grant of condonation of delay, even by imposing condition of waiving interest.

6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the various decisions as relied upon by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it can be noticed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court right from the decision in the case of Dhiraj Singh (supra) and in the case of Imrat Lal (supra) which has later been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ningappa Thotappa Angadi (supra) which is Three Judges Bench Judgment has consistently opined that where the parties are identically situated and in one set of appeals, they are found to be entitled to enhanced amount of compensation then there can be no reason to give a different treatment to the applicants who approached belatedly. So far as reliance placed by the learned AGP on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court does not refer to the Three Judges Bench judgment in the case of Ningappa Thotappa Angadi (supra) as relied upon by the learned advocate for the applicant. At the same time, the Courts have opined that the equity can be balanced by denying interest for the period for which they did not approached this Court. The broad principle which appealed to the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that the substantive rights of the affected land owners should not be

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/965/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2025

undefined

allowed to be defeated on the technical grounds of taking hyper technical view of self-imposed limitations. The court has therefore held that in the matter of compensation for land acquisition, the approach of the court has to be pragmatic and not pandemic.

7. Applying the aforesaid principles in the facts of the case where the similarly situated land owners have successfully made out prima facie case to establish their entitlement to the enhanced amount of compensation, the present applicants being similarly situated cannot be deprived of their right to seek enhanced amount of compensation on the technical ground of delay. Hence the equities in the facts of the case is balanced by directing the claimants to be not entitled to the interest on enhanced amount of compensation, if any, for the interregnum period of delay i.e. from the date of the impugned judgment and award till the date of the filing of the present appeal.

8. With these observations and conditions, delay of 1798 days caused in preferring the captioned appeal, is hereby condoned. Civil Applications stand allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute.

(NISHA M. THAKORE, J.) AMAR RATHOD...