Patel Malaji Dharmaji Since Decd. ... vs Land Acquisition And Rehabilitation ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 3374 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Patel Malaji Dharmaji Since Decd. ... vs Land Acquisition And Rehabilitation ... on 25 February, 2025

Author: Sangeeta K. Vishen

Bench: Sangeeta K. Vishen

                                                                                                                    NEUTRAL CITATION




                                C/CA/974/2025                                      ORDER DATED: 25/02/2025

                                                                                                                    undefined




                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                             R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 974 of
                                                        2025

                                             In F/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 7829 of 2023

                        ==========================================================
                             PATEL MALAJI DHARMAJI SINCE DECD. THROUGH HIS LHS & ORS.
                                                       Versus
                                LAND ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION OFFICER & ANR.
                        ==========================================================
                        Appearance:
                        MR JINESH H KAPADIA(5601) for the Applicant(s) No.
                        1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,1.7
                        MS. FORAM TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                        ==========================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
                                and
                                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA

                                                             Date : 25/02/2025

                                                ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN)

1. By this application, the applicants, have prayed for condoning the delay of 446 days caused in preferring the captioned cross objection.

2. Issue Rule, returnable forthwith. Ms Foram Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondents.

3. Mr Jinesh H. Kapadia, learned advocate submitted that delay has occurred in filing the cross-objection inasmuch as, the applicants are semi-illiterate and were unable to understand the repercussions of the judgment and award passed by the Court below. After taking necessary advice, that the cross-objections have been preferred and in the process

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/974/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2025

undefined

there occurred a delay of 348 days. It is further submitted that the impugned judgment is the subject matter of challenge by the Land Acquisition Officer by way of First Appeal no. 6020 of 2019 and is admitted vide order dated 23.11.2021. Request is made that considering the delay being bona fide, the same, may be condoned. It is declared before this Court, that the applicants shall not claim the interest for the period of delay in case this Court were to enhance the compensation.

4. Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Dhiraj Singh (D) through Lrs. Etc. vs. Haryana State & Ors. etc. reported in (2014) 14 SCC 127.

5. Ms Foram Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader states that in view of the assurance given regarding not claiming interest for the period of delay in case the compensation were to be enhanced and considering the period of delay, it is urged that appropriate order be passed.

6. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties.

7. Having regard to the averments made so also the oral submissions, this Court is of the opinion that the delay has been sufficiently explained and besides, there is a declaration by the claimants that the claimants shall not claim interest on the enhanced amount of compensation for the delayed period.

8. In the case of Ningappa Thotappa Angadi Dead Through Lrs. vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer & Another reported in (2020) 19 SCC 599, the Apex Court, has held and observed that if the claimants are identically situated, there is no reason to meet out a different treatment to them. It has

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/974/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2025

undefined

been held and observed that if there is a huge delay, equities can be balanced by denying the claimants 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 hypertechnical view of self-imposed limitations. In the matter of compensation for land acquisition, the approach of the Court has to be pragmatic and not pedantic. Paragraphs 8 to 11 are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference.

"8. We find that the issue raised in this appeal is no longer res- integra. This Court in Dhiraj Singh (Dead) through LRs. and Others v. State of Haryana and Others held that:

"14. The appellants are identically situated and there is no reason to meet out a different treatment to them. We also note that, while in these cases, the High Court had refused to condone the delay and dismissed the LPAs of the appellants, other LPAs were allowed by the High Court itself by condoning the delay of the same magnitude in the same circumstances.

15. 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 hypertechnical view of self-imposed limitations. 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.

[Emphasis applied]

9. The afore-cited view has been consistently followed by this Court in a series of cases before and after the decision in Dhiraj Singh's (dead) case (supra). In Imrat Lal & Ors. v. Land Acquisition Collector & Ors. 2, 1(2014) 14 SCC 127 2 2014 14 SCC 133 it was observed that the delay in filing the Special Leave Petition cannot be the reason to deny just and fair compensation to the claimants. This Court observed that a liberal approach should be adopted in such like matters. In Huchanagouda v. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer3 also this Court condoned the delay and restored parity in the matter of grant of compensation though with a condition "that for the period of delay in filing and in refiling the Special Leave Petitions, the appellant-claimant(s) shall not be entitled to any interest on the enhanced compenation and statutory

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/974/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2025

undefined

amount."

10. It is undeniable that this Court vide judgment dated November 11, 2016 passed in C.A. No. 2927/2010 (Ningappa Thotappa Angadi v. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr.) has set aside the order of the High Court and restored the compensation as was awarded by the Reference Court. In the cited case, this Court held as follows:

"We have heard the learned counsel for the parties to some length and carefully perused the material on record. We are of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment and order of the High Court deserves to be set aside and judgment and order passed by the Reference Court restored. We say so because, this Court has in a similar appeal directed against the very same order set aside the impugned judgment and restored the enhancement granted by the Reference Court. We see no reason to take a different view in the present case. We, accordingly, allow this appeal and while setting aside the impugned judgment insofar as the same relates to the appellant, restore the judgment and order passed by the Reference Court. The parties shall, however, bear their own costs."

11. The appellant(s) are also similarly placed claimants. They are, thus, 3 2019 SCC Online SC 990 entitled to seek parity and claim the same amount of fair and just compensation as has been awarded to other land owners. The appellant(s) are, however, not entitled to seek interest for the period for which they did not approach this Court."

9. Also, in the case of K. Subbarayudu & Others vs. Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) reported in 2017 (12) SCC 840, the Apex Court, has pointed out that the term "sufficient cause" is to receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, when no negligence, inaction or want of bona fides is attributable to the appellants, the Court should adopt a justice-oriented approach in condoning the delay. It has also been 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 case of

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/974/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2025

undefined

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. Paragraphs 11 to 13 are set out hereinbelow for ready reference.

"11. The term "sufficient cause" is to receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, when no negligence, inaction or want of bona fide is attributable to the appellants, the Court should adopt a justice-oriented approach in condoning the delay. In State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO, it was held as under:- (SCC p.757, para 8)

"8. ....Section 5 is to be construed liberally so as to do substantial justice to the parties. The provision contemplates that the court has to go into the position of the person concerned and to find out if the delay can be said to have been resulted from the cause which he had adduced and whether the cause recorded in the peculiar circumstances of the case is sufficient".

12. 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 same need not be used as a ground to depict them with negligence or want of bona fides. In case of acquisition of lands of agriculturists, the courts ought to adopt a pragmatic approach to award just and reasonable compensation and not pedantic in their approach. In Dhiraj Singh v. Haryana State, it was held as under: (SCC p.131, para 15) "15. 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. 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."

13. When the concerned court has exercised its discretion either condoning or declining to condone the delay, normally the superior court will not interfere in exercise of such discretion. The true guide is whether the litigant has acted with due diligence. Since the appellants/claimants are the agriculturists whose lands were acquired and when similar situated agriculturists were given a higher rate of compensation, there is no reason to decline the same to the appellants. Merely on the ground of delay such benefit

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/974/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2025

undefined

cannot be denied to the appellants. The interest of justice would be served by declining the interest on the enhanced compensation and also on the solatium and other statutory benefits for the period of delay."

10. In view of the above as well as considering the submissions made before this Court, the delay of 446 days caused in filing the captioned cross objections deserves to be condoned and is hereby condoned. Needless to clarify that the applicants shall not claim the interest on the enhanced amount of compensation for the period of delay in case this Court, were to allow the cross objections filed by them.

11. Civil application succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.

12. Copy of the order shall be placed on the record of First Appeal.

(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J)

(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J) SINDHU NAIR