Gujarat High Court

Jitendrabhai Manibhai Shrimali vs State Of Gujarat on 10 January, 2025

Author: Sunita Agarwal

Bench: Sunita Agarwal

                                                                                                                          NEUTRAL CITATION




                              C/SCA/250/2025                                              ORDER DATED: 10/01/2025

                                                                                                                           undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                       R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 250 of 2025

                       ==================================================
                                         JITENDRABHAI MANIBHAI SHRIMALI
                                                           Versus
                                              STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                       ==================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR MIRENKUMAR K PRIYADARSHI(11023) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                       MS RATNA VORA(2251) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                       MS HETAL PATEL ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No.
                       1,2
                       ==================================================
                            CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
                                  AGARWAL
                                                    and
                                  HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI

                       Date : 10/01/2025
                       ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

record.

2. The present petition is directed against the order dated

24.07.2024 passed by the respondent no. 2, namely the Special Land

Acquisition Officer, in rejection of the application seeking

condonation of delay in filing the reference under Section 64 of the

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as

the "Act, 2013"). The award, with respect to which reference was

sought to be made was declared on 14.10.2020. The order impugned

records that no plausible explanation could be furnished by the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/250/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2025

undefined

petitioner herein for the delay of more than three years.

3. In the present petition, the delay in filing application under

Section 64 of the Act, 2013 is sought to be explained in the following

manner :-

(1) It is stated that after the acquisition proceedings were conducted in the year 2012 for acquisition of the land in question for Metro Rail Project, the petitioner and his other family members had preferred a Civil Suit no. 477 of 2020 seeking an injunction against the respondent authorities. The said suit has been dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure vide judgment and order dated 14.11.2022 passed by the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad.

(2) It is further stated that the petitioner had preferred an appeal by way of reference before the Collector, along with an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act read with Section 10 of the General Clauses Act for condonation of delay, on 28.11.2023. There is no explanation in the writ petition as to under which statutory provisions, the appeal was preferred before the Collector on 28.11.2023. Be that as it may, the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 24.01.2024 with the finding that no appeal was maintainable against the award under the Act, 2013.

(3) It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter the petitioner had preferred application dated 15.04.2024 under the RTI Act, 2005 and the Public Information Officer/Deputy Mamlatdar had intimated in the reply dated 30.04.2024 that the proper

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/250/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2025

undefined

remedy before the petitioner is to file reference under Section 64(1) of the Act, 2013.

(4) After receipt of this communication dated 30.04.2024, in reply to the RTI application moved by the petitioner, the petitioner filed application under Section 64 of the Act, 2013 before the competent authority. Personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner on 19.07.2024 and thereafter the order impugned dated 24.07.2024 has been passed.

4. Taking note of the explanation submitted by the petitioner in

the writ petition about the delay of more than three years in making

application under Section 64 of the Act, 2013, it seems that wrong

legal advise received by the petitioner from different counsels cannot

be a reason to condone the delay. Neither the Civil Suit nor the

Appeal was maintainable after the acquisition proceeding was

undertaken and had been brought to its logical end with the making

of the award dated 14.10.2020 in LAQ Case No. 12 of 2018. It is not

the case of the petitioner that he was not aware of the award dated

14.10.2020.

5. We may refer to the provisions of Section 64 of the Act, 2013 to

note that the remedy of making reference provided under sub-section

(1) of Section 64 of the Act, 2013 is with the limitation provided in

sub-section (2) of Section 64 itself. The first and second proviso to

sub-section (1) of Section 64 of the Act, 2013 mandate the Collector

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/250/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2025

undefined

to make a reference within a period of 30 days from the date of

receipt of the application. The first proviso to sub-section (2)

provides limitation in two eventuality, six weeks from the date of

Collector's award where the person making the application was

present or represented before the Collector at the time of making the

award. In other cases, it is within six weeks of the receipt of the

notice from the Collector under Section 21, or within six months from

the date of Collector's award, whichever period first expires.

5.1. The second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 64 of the Act,

2013, however, confers power with the Collector to condone the

delay after the expiry of the period though in a circumscribed

manner, within a further period of one year. The power to condone

the delay could be exercised by the Collector on recording

satisfaction that there was sufficient cause for not filing the

application within the period specified in the first proviso. A conjoint

reading of the first and second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section

64 of the Act, 2013 clearly indicates that the Collector has no power

to condone the delay beyond the period prescribed in the aforesaid

proviso.

6. In the instant case, delay of more than three years in making

the application could not have been condoned by the authority

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/250/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2025

undefined

concerned. We, therefore, do not find any error in the order of the

authority concerned. However, as to the explanation sought to be

made by the petitioner before us in the present petition, we may note

from the order of the Collector that after the award was declared on

14.10.2020, three notices dated 15.10.2020, 05.11.2020 and

25.11.2020 were given to the petitioner and the petitioner had

accepted the compensation under the award on 28.01.2021.

Moreover, the petitioner was availing other remedies which were

barred by law, and that must be on the legal advise of the learned

counsels consulted by him. The time period elapsed in availing the

wrong remedies cannot be condoned on the ground of lack of

knowledge of the petitioner of the legal provisions to raise the

dispute with regard to the determination of compensation under the

award dated 14.10.2020.

7. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on

the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Purni Devi & Anr., v.

Babu Ram & Anr., rendered in Civil Appeal No. 4633 of 2024

decided on 02.04.2024 mentioned at page '12' of the paper book to

submit that the time consumed in contesting the bona fide litigation

by the litigant at wrong forum (believing it to be appropriate) would

be excluded while computing the limitation under Section 14 (2) of

the Limitation Act.





                                                                                                          NEUTRAL CITATION




                              C/SCA/250/2025                             ORDER DATED: 10/01/2025

                                                                                                          undefined

8. Taking note of the above, suffice it to record that the petitioner

has not been able to show his bona fide in availing the wrong remedy

by filing Civil Suit after acquisition proceedings were brought to its

legal end and before making of the award. Rather, it seems that the

Civil Suit was filed to stall the acquisition proceedings and restrain

the acquiring bodies/authorities from getting possession of the land

in question. The other remedy availed by the petitioner in the shape

of filing appeal after declaration of the award after dismissal of the

Civil Suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure also

cannot be said to be bona fide. The application filed by the petitioner

under the RTI Act, 2005, for seeking information about the legal

remedy available against the award after receipt of compensation on