Gujarat High Court
Dhanabhai Jadavbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 11 August, 2025
Author: Sangeeta K. Vishen
Bench: Sangeeta K. Vishen
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4181/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4181 of
2025
In F/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 23210 of 2025
==========================================================
DHANABHAI JADAVBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NITIN M AMIN(126) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SANJAY M AMIN(130) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SIDDHARTH RAMI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 11/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN)
1. Leave to amend granted for paragraph nos.2 and 3.
2. By this application, the applicant has prayed for condoning the
delay of 802 days caused in preferring the captioned cross objection
in First Appeal no.1427 of 2023.
3. Issue Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr Siddharth Rami, learned
Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule on
behalf of respondents.
4. Mr Nitin M. Amin, learned advocate for the applicant,
submitted that the judgment was pronounced in the year 2022
while, the respondents had deposited the amount of compensation
in June 2023. Subsequent thereto, the amount was disbursed by the
Reference Court. It is submitted that the applicant - claimant was
awarded less amount of compensation than what ought to have
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4181/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
been awarded. The possession of the land, was taken over in the
year 2002 and for almost 23 years, the applicant had been deprived
of the land and the only livelihood and in the process, had incurred
huge debt. As a result, the applicant was not having any provision to
pay the Court fees. It is only when the amount of compensation was
received and after taking necessary advice that decision was taken
to file the appeal seeking enhancement. Reference is made of the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dhiraj Singh (Dead)
Through Legal Representative and Others v. State of Haryana and
Others reported in (2014) 14 SCC 127. It is held that the cause
advanced by the applicant that they had lost the land and did not
have the money in absence of payment of compensation is a good
reason and makes out a bone fide ground that prevented the
applicant from preferring the appeal. It has also been held and
observed that the poor farmers who lost the land could not be
expected to be able to immediately arrange the funds for litigation
expenses. Furthermore, no litigant would while away the time for
the sake of whiling away when he intends to agitate for his legal
rights. It is stated at the Bar that the applicant - claimant is ready
and willing to waive the interest for the delayed period for the
enhanced amount, if this Court were to allow the cross objection
and dismiss the appeal.
5. Mr Siddharth Rami, learned Assistant Government Pleader
submitted that the delay is huge; however, considering the
explanation offered and the fact that applicant - claimant is waiving
the interest part on the enhanced amount, appropriate order be
passed.
6. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4181/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
parties.
7. It is the case of the applicant - claimant that the possession,
was taken over in the year 2002. Judgment was delivered by the
Reference Court in the year 2022. Amount of compensation was
deposited in June 2023 and subsequently, that is, almost after
almost 2 to 3 months, the amount was disbursed. There is no
dispute or contest to the said facts. The applicant - claimant has lost
the land so also the likelihood on account of permanent acquisition
of only source of income and hence, provisions could not be made
for Court fees. Only after the receipt of the compensation and
obtaining necessary advice, that the captioned cross objection is
filed. Besides, the applicant - claimant is also waiving the interest
for the delayed period on the enhanced amount of compensation, if
this Court were to allow the cross objection and dismiss the appeal.
8. Apt would be, the judgment in the case of Collector, Land
Acquisition, Anantnag and another vs. Mst. Katiji and others
reported in AIR (1987) SC 135 wherein the Apex Court has held and
observed that while condoning the delay, liberal approach be
adopted. In yet another decision of the Apex Court in the case of S.
Ganesharaju (D) Thr. L. Rs. & another vs. Narasamma (D) Thr. L. Rs.
& Others reported in (2012) 4 SCALE 152, it has been held and
observed that the expression "sufficient cause" has to be given a
liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. It is held
that unless the respondents are able to show any malafide on the
part of the applicants in not approaching the Court within limitation,
generally as a normal rule delay should be condoned.
9. Similarly in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4181/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
Dhiraj Singh (supra), the Apex Court, in paragraph 11, has held and
observed that in the matter of land acquisition where land of
peasants is acquired, a different approach has to be taken. The
person should not be deprived of the reasonable compensation for
their lands. Further more, in paragraph 15, it has been held and
observed that 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. The Apex Court, has also held and
observed that 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.
10. Similarly, in the case of K. Subbarayudu and Others v. Special
Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) reported in (2017) 12 SCC 840,
the Apex Court, has 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 the 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.
11. In view of the above, this Court, is of the opinion that
sufficient explanation has been offered and applying the principle
laid down by the Apex Court and statement made at the Bar, delay
of 802 days caused in preferring the captioned cross objection
deserves to be condoned and is accordingly condoned with a rider
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4181/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
that the applicant - claimant, shall not claim interest for the period
of delay on the enhanced amount of compensation, if this Court
were to allow the cross objection and dismiss the first appeal.
12. Civil application succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Rule is
made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J)
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
RAVI P. PATEL
