Gujarat High Court
Nirubhai Bhurabhai vs Special Land Acquisition Officer ... on 4 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4468/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4468 of
2024
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 22158 of 2024
==========================================================
NIRUBHAI BHURABHAI
Versus
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (NARMADA YOJNA) & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NITIN M AMIN(126) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS DEVANSHI PATEL for the Respondent(s) No. 1 & 3
NILAY H PATEL(7856) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 04/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The application is filed for condonation of delay
of 772 days in filing the appeal.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Nitin M. Amin for
the applicant and learned advocate Mr. Nilay H patel
for respondent no. 2 and learned AGP for respondent
no. 1 and 3.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4468/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
3. Learned advocate for the applicant further
submitted that applicant was original claimant who
has challenged the judgment and award dated
21.03.2020 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil
Judge at Botad in New LRC No. 110 of 2019. It is
contended that the possession of the land was taken
in July, 2010. After taking possession for nearly
about 12 years the compensation was not paid to the
claimants. Land Acquisition Officer awarded
compensation as the compensation on lower side,
claimants challenged the same before learned Land
Reference Court. Learned Land Reference Court
passed an award on 21.03.2020. However, For want
of necessary court fees, the claimant/applicant could
not challenged the judgment and award of Ld.
Reference Court. It is further contended that the
other claimants of the same group filed Civil
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4468/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
Application (For Condonation of Delay) No. 4213 of
2024 and allied matters wherein the Coordinate
Bench of this Court by order dated 27.11.2024
condoned the delay and notices have been issued for
final hearing. It is contended that applicants shall not
claim interest on enhanced compensation, if any,
awarded by this Court. No other submissions are
made except the above.
4. Learned AGP for respondent nos.1 and 3
contended that poverty is not a sufficient cause for
condoning the delay. It is further contended that no
sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay
and therefore, prays for rejection of the application.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Nilay H. Patel for
respondent no.2 contended that grounds mentioned in
the application are not sufficient for condoning delay.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4468/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
It is submitted that as per the contention raised in
the additional affidavit, dated 30.08.2024, indicates
that the compensation was deposited by the acquiring
body on 19.01.2023 and the amount of compensation
was disbursed in favour of the claimants on
04.07.2023. However, in para-6 of the affidavit, the
claimants are raising a contention that a
mistake/error in calculation of compensation was
brought to the notice of the learned Reference Court
but the Reference Court orally refused to correct,
such mistake. Such is not a ground whereby the
claimants can claim sufficient cause. It is contended
that no copy of the application for seeking correction
in the calculation is placed on record and no
particulars are mentioned in the affidavit as to when
the application came to be tendered before the
learned Reference Court. In support of the contention
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4468/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
learned advocate for respondent has placed reliance
upon H. Guruswamy & ORS. Versus A. Krishnaiah
Since Deceased By LRS. reported in 2025 INSC 53
and contended that Hon'ble Apex Court while
deciding an application for condonation of delay, has
held that when a party has lost his right to have the
matter considered on merits because of his own
inaction for a long period of time, under such
circumstances, the delay may not be condoned. No
other are made except the above.
6. I have considered submissions canvassed by
learned advocates for the parties and perused the
application and the affidavit dated 30.08.2024. At the
outset, it would be profitable to reproduce the
application for condonation of delay of para-1, 3 and
4:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4468/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
1. The applicant herein has filed the above First Appeal
challenging the judgment, award and decree dated 21/03/2020
passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Botad in LRC
No. 110/19.
3. It is respectfully submitted that the Apex Court in the case of
Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v/s Mst. Katiji
and others, reported at AIR 1987 SUPREME COURT 1353 has held
that for condoning delay, liberal approach be adopted on principle.
In the case of S. Ganesharaju (D) Thr. L.Rs. & Another v/s
Narasamma (D) Thr. L.Rs. & Others reported at 2012 (4) SCALE
152 has held, "The expression 'sufficient cause' has to be given
liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice... Unless
respondents are able to show malafide in not approaching the
Court within limitation, generally as a normal rule delay should be
condoned."
4. There is no fault on the part of the applicant. There is no
culpable negligence on the part of the applicant in not preferring
the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. The
circumstances stated herein above were beyond the control of the
applicant. The applicant has very good case on merits and there
are all chances to succeed in the appeal. It is submitted that if the
delay in filing the appeal is not condoned, then there would be a
great prejudice to the applicant. On the other hand, if the delay is
condoned and the above captioned appeal is heard on its merits,
then there would not be any prejudice to any party.
It appears from the application that the
claimants are trying to show sufficient cause for
condoning the delay by stating a fact that possession
of land was acquired in July, 2010 and the claimants
did not receive compensation for 12 years.
Undisputably, the impugned judgment and award is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4468/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
passed on 21.03.2020. If the record is perused the
certified copy of the judgment and award was applied
by the claimants on 28.09.2020 and it was received
by the claimants on 30.10.2020. It appears that in the
application for condonation of delay, no explanation
is canvassed explaining the period between
30.10.2020 till filing of the present application i.e.
03.08.2024. If the affidavit dated 30.08.2024 is
perused, the claimants are stating that the
compensation was deposited by the acquiring body on
19.01.2023 and thereafter, it was disbursed on
04.07.2023. After the receipt of the compensation on
04.07.2023 the applicant remained idle and filed the
appeal on 03.08.2024 with an application for
condonation of delay. There is no worthwhile
explanation for the gap between the date of receipt
of the compensation and the date of filing the appeal.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4468/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
Undisputably, the claimant was having certified copy
of the impugned order in the year, 2020. The ground
of shortage of funds could have been taken care of
by resorting to the provisions contained in Order 33
of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said provision
contemplates that when a litigant who is having
financial difficulty for paying necessary court fees can
resort to the Order 33 of CPC and file the
proceedings as an indigent person. However, in the
present case the applicant did receive the
compensation in 2023 but opted to remain as a
fence-sitter and watch the outcome of the application
for condonation of delay filed by other claimants. In
the case of H. Guruswamy & ORS (supra) the Hon'ble
Apex Court in para no.-16 has observed as under:
16. The length of the delay is definitely a relevant matter which
the court must take into consideration while considering whether
the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the
approach of the respondents herein, it appears that they want to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4468/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
fix their own period of limitation for the purpose of instituting the
proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation.
Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter
considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it
cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such
circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the
substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical
considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of
delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter.
The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the
explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if
the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of
the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into
aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the
delay.
In the case of The State of Gujarat & 2 versus
Dahayabhai Nyalchand Vora reported in 2014 SCC
Online Guj 6805, the Hon'ble Apex Court in para no.-
6.2 has observed as under:
6.2 It may be true that in a given or special case, late applying of
certified copy may have good reason to be condoned. But,
ordinarily and in all normal cases, the act of applying certified
copy immediately or at least within the period of limitation after
deliverance of the judgment proposed to be challenged, is an
important measure of litigant's vigilance. It is also a reflection of
intention to carry the case in appeal and agitate for his rights. This
much amount of vigilance is expected, whether it is a private
individual or a government department. Therefore, without making
a rule of thumb, it can be safely stated that when the certified
copy is not applied within the period of limitation, it suggests
apathy and negligence on part of the litigant. In the present case,
there is no explanation for time gap between 14th October, 2011
and 21st April, 2012. Given this conduct of not applying the
certified copy till the papers reached the office of the Government
Pleader at High Court, the explanation about time taken in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4468/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
exhausting different decisional stages turned out to be the lame
excuse, judicially not acceptable. Mere movement of files from one
table to another and the stock ground of administrative procedure
cannot furnish a good cause and a sufficient cause in all cases,
unless the time consumed in the decision making process is shown
to be bonafide.
7. In the present case it appears that the claimants
remained negligent and opted not to challenge the
impugned judgment and award for considerable
period of time. Considering the conduct of the
applicant and more particularly the explanations
which have been tried to be canvassed by the
applicant are not the sufficient causes whereby delay
of 772 days can be condoned. As no case is made out
by the applicant for condonation of delay, the
application stands rejected. No order as to costs.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
PD
