Gujarat High Court

Patel Harji Prabha (Deceased) vs Deputy Collector, Special Land ... on 14 July, 2025

                                                                                                             NEUTRAL CITATION




                               C/CA/3024/2025                                ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025

                                                                                                              undefined




                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                          R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 3024 of
                                                     2025

                                                In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 36872 of 2024
                        ================================================================
                                    PATEL HARJI PRABHA (DECEASED) & ORS.
                                                    Versus
                          DEPUTY COLLECTOR, SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR.
                        ================================================================
                        Appearance:
                        MR VIRAL J DAVE(5751) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,2
                        MS DEVANSHI K PATEL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
                        ================================================================
                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI

                                                         Date : 14/07/2025
                                                          ORAL ORDER

1. The captioned application is filed under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act, 1963 for praying to condone the delay of

2708 days, which has taken place in filing of first appeal.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Viral J. Dave for the applicants

and learned AGP Ms. Devanshi Patel for the respondent-

State.

3. It is submitted by learned advocate for the applicants that

the challenge in the first appeal is against the judgment

and award dated 24.04.2017 passed by the learned 2 nd

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Palanpur under Section 18 of

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, hereinafter referred

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/3024/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025

undefined

to as `the Act') in Land Reference Case No.660 of 2000. He

further submitted that the land acquisition Officer, on 15-

07-2000 determined the market value at Rs.4.80 Paisa per

square meter for irrigated lands and Rs.3.20 per square

meter for non-irrigated lands. All the claimants challenged

the award passed by the land acquisition Officer by way of

LAR Nos.637 to 662 of 2000. By common judgment and

award, learned reference Court, Palanpur awarded

additional compensation of Rs.20.16 paisa per square

meter for irrigated and non-irrigated lands. This Court,

while deciding first appeal of claimants so far as land of

Ajavada has enhanced the compensation @ Rs.41/- per

square meter. He has further contended that the said

village Ajavada is having a common boundary with the

village Naroli and the claimants of the present first appeals

are equally entitled to amount of Rs.41/- per square meter

as compensation.

4. It is also contended that certified copy of the impugned

judgment and award which was prepared on 28.10.2024

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/3024/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025

undefined

and delivered on the same day. The reasons for not

applying for obtaining certified copy within the limitation

are narrated in the application for condonation of delay. As

per the submission of learned advocate for the applicants,

applicants are poor villagers and have no knowledge of law

of limitation. The applicants came to know about the

passing of the judgment and award after few weeks of the

pronouncement of judgment and award. Applicants could

not take a prompt decision to challenge the judgment and

award as there were difference of opinions amongst the

claimants / applicants in taking a decision for challenging

the judgment and award. The applicants, as per the

submission of learned advocate for the applicants, are

financially weak persons and they are dependents upon

the agricultural activities. The amount of compensation

was deposited before the learned Reference Court in the

year 2018 and, thereafter, the said amount was received

by the claimants, but since the claimants had to spend the

amount for social events like marriage, death, etc., they

could not save the amount for expenses to be incurred for

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/3024/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025

undefined

filing an appeal. Due to Covid-19 pandemic situation also

applicants could not prefer the appeals.

5. Thereafter, in the year 2023-24, the applicants could sell

agricultural products and out of such products, and by

borrowing funds from the friends, preferred the captioned

first appeals with applications for condonation of delay.

There is no willful delay on the part of the applicants and

the circumstances were beyond the control of applicants.

Resultantly, the appeals could not be filed within a

prescribed period of limitation.

6. In support of his contention, learned advocate for the

applicants has relied upon a decision dated 23.4.2025 in

the case of Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana arising

out of SLP (C) No.670 of 2020 and a decision Laxmi

Narain v. State of Haryana arising out of SLP (C)

No.2832 of 2020. Fact before the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the cases of Suresh Kumar (Supra) and Laxmi

Narain (Supra) was that the applicants took into

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/3024/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025

undefined

consideration cases concerning acquisitions in the same

area, the compensation stood further enhanced in several

petitions in terms of different judgments rendered by both

the High Courts of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh and by

the Honorable Supreme Court.

7. Applying the same ratio, it is submitted that when the land

owners of village Ajavada received compensation at Rs.41/-

per square meter, the present applicants are also claiming

parity and considering the fact that the adjoining villages

have received a higher amount of compensation, the

claimants in the present applications are also entitled to

such higher amount of compensation and, therefore, a

lenient view be adopted and delay may be condoned in the

interest of justice.

8. Learned advocate for respondent No.2 has contested the

application by submitting that the reasons assigned in the

applications are not sufficient for condoning a gross delay.

It is contended that from the averments made in the

applications, it is an undisputed fact that the impugned

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/3024/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025

undefined

judgment and award came to be passed on 24.04.2017 in a

group of land reference cases and the compensation has

been deposited in the year 2018 before the learned

Reference Court which was received by claimants. It is also

pointed out from the application that the claimants also

knew about the pronouncement of the judgment and

award, few weeks after 24.04.2017. The amount which was

received by the claimants was sufficient to incur expenses

to file first appeals. However, the claimants did not prefer

any first appeal and waited for a long period of time

whereby the conduct of the applicant is not a bonafide

conduct.

9. Application lacks an explanation as to why the certified

copy was not applied till 2024 i.e. for a period of almost 7

years. It is contended that merely because some persons

have obtained relief by approaching the Court, some

orders are passed in favour of those persons, the present

applicants cannot take advantage of such a situation by

approaching the Court at a belated stage. Merely because

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/3024/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025

undefined

some other persons obtained relief in similar matter or in a

matter where similar issue has been cropped up, it does

not mean that the persons are entitled to the same benefit.

It is pointed out that the explanation has to be bonafide

which has to be believed by the Court and in absence of

any bonafide explanation, the Court has to decide whether

it is a bonafide explanation or not. In support of this

contention, learned advocate for respondent No.2 has

relied upon following decisions.

(a) Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs and others v. The Special Deputy Collector dated 8.4.2024 passed in Special Civil Petition (Civil) No.31248 of 2018 &

(b) Brijesh Kumar and others v. State of Haryana dated 24.3.2014 passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.6609-6613 of 2014

10. Learned AGP for the respondent - State has contended that

the certified copy of the impugned judgment and award

was applied by the claimants / applicants after the expiry

of period of limitation. Mere poverty and lack of legal

knowledge, as asserted by the claimants in the application,

is no ground to establish a sufficient cause. Reliance is

placed upon following decision:

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/3024/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025

undefined

(a) Punaben Naran Hethvadiya Wd/o Naran Vira v. Shantaben Laghubhai W/o Laghubhai Ramji dated 29.2.2012 passed in Civil Application No.3395 of 2011 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.

11. I have considered the submissions canvassed by the

learned advocates for the respective parties and also

perused the papers placed on record.

12. It appears from the record that before applying the

certified copy of the impugned judgment and award,

amount of compensation was deposited by respondent

No.2 before the learned Reference Court in 2018 and the

same was withdrawn by the claimants in the same year.

The explanation which are sought to be canvassed by the

applicants are mainly 3 fold (a) lack of knowledge of law of

limitation for filing the appeal (b) applicants being poor

villagers and shortage of funds and (c) other claimants /

applicants of the same village Naroli took time in taking a

decision whether to challenge the judgment and award or

not.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/3024/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025

undefined

13. When a specific question was put to learned advocate for

the applicants whether other claimants of same group have

preferred any first appeals or not, there was no specific

reply given by him. Second cause of weak financial status

has resulted into time in taking a decision to file appeals.

One of the explanations assigned for delay is that the land

owners of village Ajavada have received a compensation @

Rs.41/- per square meter and the claimants who are from

village Naroli have been awarded compensation @

Rs.20.16 per square meter by learned Reference Court.

14. A reason of Covid 19 has also been tried to be advanced by

the claimants for non-filing of appeal within a prescribed

period of limitation. It appears from application that In

2023-24, the claimants after selling agricultural products

received the amount which was utlizied for preferring the

appeals. Claimants also took financial assistance from the

friends to incur expenses to file the appeals.

15. The contention of having shortage of funds is not a ground

which could be termed as a sufficient cause in the present

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/3024/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025

undefined

case for the reason that the compensation was received by

applicants in the year 2018, however, instead of assailing

the impugned judgment and award, the applicants

expended the amount of compensation for other causes. If

the applicants were truly aggrieved and dissatisfied with

the impugned judgment and award, instead of incurring

expenses for some other causes, the priority could have

been given to file first appeals in the same year in which

the claimants received compensation. The First Appeals

could have been filed as indigent pesons.

16. The contention that there were differences of opinion

amongst the claimants whether to file appeal challenging

the judgment and award is by no stretch of imagination be

termed as `sufficient cause'. What is material is the

decision has to be taken by the claimants themselves

whether to challenge the impugned judgment and award.

The decision of challenging the impugned judgment and

award cannot be dependent upon the decisions to be taken

by other claimants / applicants.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/3024/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025

undefined

17. From the submissions canvassed by the learned advocate

for the applicants as well as the averments made in the

application, it appears that the applicants have remained

negligent and the applicants are fence-sitters just waiting

for other claimants to succeed in the first appeals. The

contention that in a nearby village, the land owners

received compensation to the tune of Rs.41/- per square

meter and, therefore, the applicants found necessary to

challenge the impugned judgment and award is improper.

This issue is no more res integra in the decision of

Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by Lrs and others

(Supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while discussing

the issue of Limitation, has observed in Paragraph No.16 as

under:

"16. Generally, the courts have adopted a very liberal approach in construing the phrase 'sufficient cause' used in Section 5 of (the Limitation Act in order to condone the delay to enable the courts to do substantial justice and to apply law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice. In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Ors. vs. Katiji and Ors.2, this Court in advocating the liberal approach in condoning the delay for 'sufficient cause' held that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late; it is not necessary to explain every day's delay in filing the appeal; and since sometimes refusal to condone delay may result in throwing out a meritorious matter, it is necessary in the interest of justice that cause of substantial justice should be allowed to prevail upon technical considerations and if the delay is not deliberate, it ought to be condoned. Notwithstanding the above, howsoever, liberal approach is adopted in condoning the delay,

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/3024/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025

undefined

existence of 'sufficient cause' for not filing the appeal in time, is a condition precedent for exercising the discretionary power to condone the delay. The phrases 'liberal approach', oriented approach' and cause for the advancement of 'substantial justice' cannot be employed to defeat the law of limitation so as to allow stale matters or as a matter of fact dead matters to be revived and re-opened by taking aid of Section 5 of the Limitation Act."

18. In the decision of Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by Lrs

and others (Supra), Hon'ble Apex Court referred

decisions in the case of Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal

v. Rewa Coalfields Limited, Maqbul Ahmad and

others v. Onkar Pratap Narain Singh and others,

Brijesh Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and

others, Lanka Venkateswarlu v. State of Andhra

Pradesh and others, State of Jharkhand v. Ashok

Kumar Chokhani and Baswaraj and another v.

Special Land Acquisition Officer.

19. In the case of Baswaraj and another (Supra), which has

been referred by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph

No.23, a law has been laid down that expression `sufficient

cause' as occurred in Section 5 of Limitation Act cannot be

liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of

bonafide is writ large.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/3024/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025

undefined

20. In paragraph No. 26 of the decision in the case of

Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by Lrs and others

(Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has interpreted what is

sufficient cause in condoning delay.

"26. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that:

(i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself;

(ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time;

(iii) The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally;

(iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act;

(v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence;

(vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal;

(vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and

(viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/3024/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025

undefined

and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision. "

21. Clause No.(vi) of Paragraph No.26 lays down down a law

that merely some persons obtained relief in similar

matters, it does not mean that others are also entitled to

the same benefit, if the Court is not satisfied with the

cause shown for the delay in filing the appeals.

22. In paragraph 30, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as

under:

"30. The aforesaid decisions would not cut any ice as the imposition of conditions is not warranted when sufficient cause has not been shown for condoning the delay. Secondly, delay is not liable to be condoned merely because some persons have been granted relief on the facts of their own case. Condonation of delay in such circumstances is in violation of the legislative intent and express provision of the statute. Condoning the delay merely for the reason that the claimants have been deprived of the interest for the delay, without holding that they had made out a case for condoning the delay, is not a correct approach, particularly when both the above decisions have been rendered in ignorance of the earlier pronouncement in the case of Basawaraj (supra)."

23. The contention of learned advocate for the applicants that

the applicants can be saddled with a cost of waiving of

interest on the enhanced amount, in paragraph No.31, the

Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under :

"31. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submitted, on the basis of additional documents, that in connection with the land acquisition in some other Special Leave Petitions,

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/3024/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025

undefined

delay was condoned by taking a lenient view and compensation was enhanced with the rider that the claimants shall not be entitled for statutory benefits for the period of delay in approaching this Court or the High Court. The said orders do not clearly spell out the facts and reasons explaining the delay in filing the appeal(s), but the fact remains that the delay was condoned by taking too liberal an approach and putting conditions which have not been approved by this Court itself. In the absence of clear facts justifying condonation of delay in the referred cases, vis-à-vis the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that the reasons for condoning the delay are identical or similar. Therefore, we are unable to exercise our discretionary power of condoning the delay in filing the appeal on parity with the above order(s)."

24. In the present case, it appears from the application itself

that in the year 2018, claimants have received an amount

of compensation, however, did not challenge the impugned

judgment and award would certainly mean that the

claimants have accepted the decision of the learned

Reference Court and after a period of almost 7 years, an

application for obtaining certified copy was made. Such

conduct on the part of the applicants raises a serious doubt

and this Court would not lean towards the applicants by

taking a lenient view of condoning the delay.

25. The decision which has been relied upon by learned

advocate for the applicants would not apply to the facts of