[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Lilaben Vallabhbhai Vaghasiya vs State Of Gujarat on 11 December, 2025
Author: A.Y. Kogje
Bench: A.Y. Kogje
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4602/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4602 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 20348 of 2025
==========================================================
LILABEN VALLABHBHAI VAGHASIYA & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NITIN M AMIN(126) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
MR SANJAY M AMIN(130) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
MR SHIVAM DIXIT, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s)
No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
Date : 11/12/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE)
1. The application is to condone the delay of 2212 days which
has occurred in preferring the appeal against the judgment
and award dated 27.02.2019 passed by the Principal
Senior Civil Judge, Junagadh in Land Reference Case
No.12 of 2004. According to the learned advocate, the
Reference Court had decided the Reference of the present
application by combining it with another matter of
Reference, which was predominantly dismissed on account
of the fact that the land for which the compensation was
claimed by the claimant society was the land which
belonged to the State Government and the Reference of the
present application being combined with those claims
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4602/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/12/2025
undefined
came to be rejected, as if the land, which had gone in
acquisition and of private ownership of the applicant are
also treated, as if such lands are Government allotted land.
There does not appear to be much dispute on this fact that
the lands of the applicant covered under the acquisition
proceedings bearing Survey No.52/1, 01-hectare, 02-Are
and 60-sq.mtrs. of village Nana Gujariya are that of the
private ownership of the applicant.
2. Thereafter, the learned advocate has drawn our attention
to the averments made in paragraph Nos.7 to 10 explaining
the delay as well as the affidavit-in-rejoinder and the social
status of the application which has resulted into the delay.
3. The Court also perused the affidavit-in-reply filed by the
respondent No.2 opposing the grant of application which
predominantly proceeds on the fact that as if the land
acquired of the applicant are of Government lands.
However, as is observed hereinabove, that the land of the
applicant, which was part of the acquisition proceedings
were of private ownership and the other private claimants
similarly situated as that the applicant and who were also
part of the same acquisition proceedings, the appeal was
entertained by this Court.
4. At this stage, learned advocate for the applicant, under
instructions, makes a statement that he shall not claim the
interest for the delayed period, which is attributable to the
applicant in preferring the appeal against the Reference
Court's award.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4602/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/12/2025
undefined
5. In view of the aforesaid, the Court finds sufficient reason
for delay of 2212 days and, therefore, condones the same.
Civil Application for condonation of delay is allowed. Rule
is made absolute accordingly.
(A.Y. KOGJE, J)
(J. L. ODEDRA, J)
SUDHIR
