Gujarat High Court
Jamnadas Veljibhai vs Deputy Collector And Special Land ... on 18 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2710/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 2710 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 7702 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2712 of 2025
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 7672 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2713 of 2025
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 7680 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2714 of 2025
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 7695 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2715 of 2025
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 7689 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2716 of 2025
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 7696 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2720 of 2025
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 7706 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2721 of 2025
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 7699 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2729 of 2025
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 7617 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2730 of 2025
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 7675 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2731 of 2025
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 7631 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2732 of 2025
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 7693 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2739 of 2025
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 7703 of 2025
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:19:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2710/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025
undefined
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2740 of 2025
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 7606 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2741 of 2025
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 7683 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2742 of 2025
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 7678 of 2025
==========================================================
JAMNADAS VELJIBHAI
Versus
DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER &
ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS VIRAL N MODI(11024) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS DHARITRI PANCHOLI AND MS DEVANSHI PATEL, AGPs for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 18/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of present application filed u/s 5 of the
Limitation Act, the applicants have prayed to
condone delay of 321 days caused in preferring
captioned First Appeals on the reasons stated in the
applications.
2. Learned advocate for the applicants would
submit that they present applicant/s is/are unaware
of the provisions of law, which could permit him to
file appeals, which is a statutory right. He has
produced decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2710/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025
undefined
case of K. Subbarayadu and others Vs. The
Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition)
reported in 2017(12) SCC 840 and would submit
that considering the law laid down in
aforementioned case, the applicant is not claiming
his right for the interest upon the enhanced
compensation, if any, for the delay period.
3. Learned AGPs while opposing this applications,
would submit that delay is not sufficiently explained
and therefore, present applications may be
dismissed.
4. Heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and perused the documents on record and
also perused the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag
and Anr. Vs. Mrs. Katji and Ors. reported in AIR
1987 SC 1353, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has
observed as under:-
"1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by
lodging an appeal late.
2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a
meritorious matter being thrown out at the very
threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As
against this when delay is condoned the highest that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2710/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025
undefined
can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits
after hearing the parties.
3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not
mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why
not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The
doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense
pragmatic manner.
4. When substantial justice and technical
considerations are pitted against each other, cause of
substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other
side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being
done because of a nondeliberate delay.
5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned
deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on
account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to
benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious
risk.
6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not
on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical
grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice
and is expected to do so."
5. With profit, I may also refer judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Dhiraj Singh (Dead)
Through Legal Heirs Vs. State of Haryana and
Ors. reported in 2014 (14) SCC 127, wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court has observed thus:-
"we can take judicial notice of the fact that villagers in
our country are by and large illiterate and are not
conversant with the intricacies of law. They are usually
guided by their covillagers, who are familiar with the
proceedings in the Courts or the advocates with whom
they get in touch for redressal of their grievance.
Affidavits filed in support of the applications for
condonation of delay are usually drafted by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2710/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025
undefined
advocates on the basis of halfbaked information made
available by the affected persons. Therefore, in the
acquisition matters involving claim for award of just
compensation, the Court should adopt a liberal
approach and either grant time to the party to file better
affidavit to explain delay or suo motu take cognizance of
the fact that large number of other similarly situated
persons who were affected by the determination of
compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer, or the
Reference Court have been granted relief." In
Samiyathal v. Tahsildar decided on 5-7- 2013, this Court
took cognizance of the fact that many landowners may
not have been able to seek intervention of this Court for
grant of enhanced compensation due to illiteracy,
poverty and ignorance and issued direction that those
who have not filed special leave petition should be given
enhanced compensation."
6. Applying the ratio of afore-stated judgment in
background of the facts of the present case as well
as considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in case of K. Subbarayadu (Supra),
the application seeking condonation of delay
deserves consideration. However, the claimant
would not be entitled to claim interest on the
enhanced amount of compensation, if any, during
the delay period.
7. In the result, present Applications are allowed
and delay caused in preferring captioned First
Appeals is hereby condoned. However it is made
clear that the applicant shall waive the claim of
interest for the period of delay caused in preferring
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2710/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025
undefined
the First Appeals on enhanced amount of award if
any. No costs.
8. The Registry shall keep copy of this order in
each matter.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
vk
