Gujarat High Court
Vasantbhai Kurjibhai vs Gujarat Government on 24 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/6241/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 6241 of
2024
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 34921 of 2024
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6243 of 2024
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 34919 of 2024
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6244 of 2024
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 34882 of 2024
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6246 of 2024
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 34926 of 2024
==========================================================
VASANTBHAI KURJIBHAI
Versus
GUJARAT GOVERNMENT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. SAMARTH AMIN FOR MR GM AMIN(124) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RITESH J TRIVEDI(3222) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. SHIVAM DIXIT, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 24/04/2025
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Samarth Amin appearing on behalf
of Mr. G.M. Amin, learned advocate on record for the applicants and
learned Assistant Government Pleader for and on behalf of the
respondents - State Authorities.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/6241/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
2. The present applications are filed at the instance of the original
claimants seeking condonation of delay of 2370 days caused in
preferring the proposed captioned appeals under Section 54 of the
Land Acquisition Act whereby they intend to challenge the common
impugned judgment and award passed under section 18 of the Act
fixing the amount of compensation on lower side.
3. Learned advocate for the applicants 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 being
illiterate and not conversant with the intricacies of the law and being
otherwise guided by the co-villagers had chose 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 approach. It was further submitted that
arising out of the same impugned judgment and award, delay has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/6241/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
been condoned by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide order
dated 16.08.2024 passed in Civil Application (For Condonation of
Delay) No.1 of 2023 in F/First Appeal No.4517 of 2023 and allied
matters, and the First Appeals are admitted by the Hon'ble Division
Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.10.2024 passed in R/First
Appeal No.3286 of 2024 and allied matters.
3.1 The reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Dhiraj Singh v. State of Haryana (2014)
14 SCC 127 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 236 as well as in the case of Imrat Lal
v. 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.
3.2 Lastly, learned advocate has placed reliance upon the Three
Judges Bench Judgment in the case of Ningappa Thotappa Angadi
Dead Thr. LRs. V/s Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another,
reported in (2020) 19 SCC 599.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/6241/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
4. On the other hand, learned AGP for the respondent - State
Authorities has vehemently objected to the aforesaid submissions.
Learned AGP has 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 applicants were 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. v. The Special Deputy Collector (LA)
(2024 INSC 286) where the Court following the earlier judgment in
the case of Basawaraj and Another V/s 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 bona fide 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/6241/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
imposing any condition whatsoever. 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 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.
5. Learned advocate appearing for the applicants - original
claimants has referred to the order dated 23.04.2025 passed by this
Court in Civil Application (for Condonation of Delay) No.957 of 2025 in
F/First Appeal No.3011 of 2025 and has submitted that in similar
group of matters, has condoned the delay by imposing condition that
the claimants are not entitled to claim interest for the delayed period
in approaching this court by way of First Appeal. He has therefore
urged to condone the delay with suitable conditions.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/6241/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
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 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/6241/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
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 2370 days
respectively caused in preferring the captioned appeals, is hereby
condoned. Civil Applications stand allowed to the aforesaid extent.
Rule is made absolute.
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
SUYASH SRIVASTAVA
