Gujarat High Court
The State Of Gujarat vs Panchal Jayantibhai Ramabhai on 18 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5484/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5484 of
2024
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 30033 of 2024
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5432 of 2024
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 30028 of 2024
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5435 of 2024
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 30035 of 2024
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5447 of 2024
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 30023 of 2024
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5485 of 2024
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 30029 of 2024
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5487 of 2024
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 30020 of 2024
================================================================
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
Versus
PANCHAL JAYANTIBHAI RAMABHAI
================================================================
Appearance:
MS DEVANSHI PATEL, AGP for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR YOGIN A BHAMBHANI(6444) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 18/06/2025
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. The captioned Civil Applications are filed under Section 5
of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 2630
days in filing the First Appeal against the judgment and award
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5484/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025
undefined
passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Modasa,
District-Arvalli in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.960 to
965 of 2010 (Old LAR Nos.47 to 52 of 2007).
2. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.
Devanshi Patel, for the applicants and learned advocate Mr.
Yogin A. Bhambhani for the respondent.
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the applicants
has submitted that judgment and award passed in Land
Acquisition Reference Case Nos.960 to 965 of 2010 (Old LAR
No.47 to 52 of 2007) is challenged by the State. However, there
is a delay in preferring First Appeal. The reasons assigned in the
applications are mainly that the authority took time in taking a
decision to file an appeal. It is submitted that an application for
obtaining certified copy of the impugned judgment and award
was made on 05.05.2017 and was received by learned District
Government Pleader on 25.09.2017. The opinion of learned
District Government Pleader was sent to the Road and Building
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5484/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025
undefined
Office, Modasa on 21.04.2018. The Special Land Acquisition
officer gave his opinion on 22.07.2019. A letter dated
13.08.2019 was sent for sanctioning of grant. The
Superintending Engineer sent proposal dated 20.09.2019 to the
State Authority. The said proposal was forwarded on
01.12.2019. On 24.06.2020 a decision was taken to file an
appeal against the impugned award. The Revenue Department
also opined to file an appeal on 13.07.2020. Calculation-sheets
were thereafter, called upon by the State authority on
03.09.2020. The Department of Roads and Building, Modasa
sent a proposal to the concerned department after thorough
observation of calculation-sheets on 07.10.2020. On 04.12.2020.
Concerned Office sent proposal to the Executive Engineer to file
an appeal against the impugned award. Again a proposal was
sent by the Superintending Engineer on 09.12.2020 to the State
Authority for re-consideration of its decision. The grant was
sanctioned on 02.02.2021 by the State Authority and the amount
was deposited by the State before learned Reference Court on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5484/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025
undefined
20.02.2021. Execution Application were filed by claimants
wherein, learned Reference Court issued recovery warrant. The
Office of Superintending Engineer Panchayat, Roads and
Building Circle Office, Ahmedabad on 05.05.2023, asked for
remaining amount of grant. Thereafter, on 03.10.2023, the State
decided to file an appeal. The Execution Petition came to be
withdrawn by original claimant in the year 2023. On
18.10.2023, legal department took the decision to file an appeal
against the impugned award. On 21.10.2023, Roads and
Building Department sent a communication of Superintending
Engineer Panchayat, Roads and Building Circle Office,
Ahmedabad to file an appeal. Thereafter, various
communications was ensued between the legal department of
the State and the office of Government Pleader, High Court of
Gujarat with regard to supply of records and papers from the
concerned office. The office of Government Pleader, High Court
of Gujarat also sought for detailed reasons in delay in receiving
sanction to file an appeal. Thereafter, the time was consumed in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5484/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025
undefined
receiving the demand draft of the requisite Court fees.
Resultantly, delay has been caused.
3.1. It is further submitted that there is no intentional delay on
the part of the State in filing the appeal. The time has mainly
been consumed in getting the necessary approval and sanctions
from various departments of the State. File has to travel from
one department to another department of the applicants for
necessary approval before a decision to file an appeal is taken by
the State machinery. It is, therefore, submitted that there is no
negligence on the part of applicants and therefore, in the interest
of justice, delay may be condoned.
4. Per contra, learned advocate for the claimant-respondent
has vehemently objected in granting of the application. Reliance
has been placed upon the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent.
It is contended that on 03.09.2020, the Road and Building
Department vide communication dated 03.09.2020 pursuant to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5484/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025
undefined
an RTI application filed by the advocate of the claimant,
admitted that the judgment and award passed on 28.04.2017 in
Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.960 to 965 of 2010
passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Modasa,
District-Arvalli has been accepted by the Government. Vide
communication dated 25.09.2020, RTI Officer of Roads and
Building Department, Gandhinagar intimated claimants that the
judgment and award on 28.04.2017 has been accepted.
However, applicants did not comply with the award and took
unnecessary time and delayed the payment of compensation. It
is further contended that learned Reference Court has relied
upon a decision rendered in Land Reference Case No.73 of 1999
passed by learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Modasa at
Sabarkantha and passed the judgment and award in Land
Acquisition Reference Case Nos.960 to 965 of 2010. It is further
contended that the State has accepted the judgment and award
passed in LAR No.73 of 1999 and made the payment of
compensation. It is further contended that reasons assigned in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5484/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025
undefined
the application are not sufficient and once the State has decided
to accept the judgment and award, any decision taken thereafter
by the State is nothing but to see that the claimants do not get
the compensation within a reasonable time. Even after
withdrawal of the Execution Petition in the year 2023, applicant
did not file the appeal within a reasonable time and with
malafide intention took time in ensuing unnecessary
correspondences with internal departments. No sufficient cause
is made out by applicant/s and therefore, delay may not be
condoned.
5. I have considered the submissions canvassed by learned
advocates for the parties and also perused the application
together with affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent. It
appears that in group of Land Acquisition Reference Case
Nos.960 to 965 of 2010, learned Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Modasa, District-Arvalli has allowed the reference cases on
28.04.2017. The certified copy of the impugned judgment and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5484/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025
undefined
award was received on 25.09.2017 and thereafter, as per the
averments made in the applications, more particularly, in
paragraph Nos.4 to 9, applicants took time in taking a decision
to file an appeal. The reasons which are mentioned in the
applications are nothing but a clear case of lethargy on the part
of the State Machinery in taking a decision whether to file any
appeal or not. Further, it is apt to refer some dates which are
mentioned in the application. It is really shocking to note that
once Government Authority has taken a decision to accept the
judgment and award which can been seen from the
communications dated 03.09.2020 and 25.09.2020, the State
machinery thereafter, took a decision to file an appeal, which
can be demonstrated by referring following dates and events.
Dates Events
22.11.2017 Ld. District Government pleader forwarded his opinion to prefer
an Appeal
21.04.2018 Proposal to prefer an Appeal along with opinion of Ld. District
Government pleader was sent to Road and Building office, Modasa
with an opinion to file an Appeal
22.07.2019 Special Land Acquisition officer gave an opinion
24.06.2020 Committee of Land Acquisition had opined to file an Appeal
13.07.2020 Revenue Department opined to file an Appeal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5484/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025
undefined
04.12.2020 Concerned officer had sent the proposal to the Executive Engineer
to file an Appeal
03.10.2023 State Authority had decided and opined to file an Appeal
18.10.2023 Legal Department had passed necessary orders to file an Appeal
21.10.2023 Roads and Building Department sent a communication to the office
of the Superintending Engineer Panchayat, Roads and Building
Circle Officer, Ahmedabad to file an Appeal
Oct, 2023 Legal Department had sent a communication to the office of the
Government Law Officers, High Court of Gujarat to file an Appeal
26.10.2023 Office of Government Pleader, High Court of Gujarat had sent
communication to Deputy Secretary, Roads and Building
Department, Gandhinagar so as to provide certified copies
20.11.2023 Office of the Government Pleader, High Court of Gujarat,
telephonically communicated to the concerned officer so as to
provide reason for delay in receiving sanction to file an appeal
16.10.2024 First Appeal filed alongwith an application for condonation of
delay
6. Interestingly, applicants have suppressed these two vital
and important communications in the application. The
Execution Petition which was filed by claimants in the year
2022, came to be withdrawn in the year 2023. A recovery
warrant was issued against applicants for the recovery of
compensation. Issuance of the recovery warrant against the
Government machinery is the height of an inaction on the part
of the Government Officers. The award of 2017 was not either
challenged nor complied with till the issuance of a recovery
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5484/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025
undefined
warrant speaks volume. The conduct of applicants, in the
present case, is not sufficient to exercise a discretionary power
of condoning delay. The Government machinery has to act
swiftly and without any inordinate delay in taking a decision. In
the present case, when in the year 2020, the Road and Building
Department, Gandhinagar declared its acceptance of the
judgment and award passed in reference cases. There was no
reasons to withhold compensation. After accepting the award
what was need or what was the necessity to take a decision to
question the judgment and award, has not been explained in the
applications. This is a clear case of inaction on the part of the
Government machinery and the reasons assigned in the
applications are not sufficient to condone delay. The
Government Officers have failed in performing their duties,
resultantly, State has to pay interest on such period. Reasons
assigned in the applications do not warrant any leniency to be
shown to the applicants. In the case of Esha Bhattacharjee v.
Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5484/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025
undefined
reported in (2013) 12 SCC 649, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
made following observations;
"21. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly
be culled out are:
21.1. (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-
pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation
of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are
obliged to remove injustice.
21.2. (ii) The terms "sufficient cause" should be understood in their
proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that
these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper
perspective to the obtaining fact-situation.
21.3. (iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the
technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for
emphasis.
21.4. (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of
delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to
be taken note of.
21.5. (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation
of delay is a significant and relevant fact.
21.6. (vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should
not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts
are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no
real failure of justice.
21.7. (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the
conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally
unfettered free play.
21.8. (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay
of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is
attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the
first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a
liberal delineation.
21.9. (ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its
inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into
consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5484/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025
undefined
are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both
parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name
of liberal approach.
21.10. (x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged
in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to
expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a
litigation.
21.11. (xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud,
misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the
technicalities of law of limitation.
21.12. (xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinised
and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial
discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on
individual perception.
21.13. (xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a
collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude."
7. In the case of Union of India and Another Versus
Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy(D) Through His Lr.. reported in
2024 SCC OnLine SC 489, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
referred to the case of Esha Bhattacharjee (supra) and has
further set out guidelines which are as under;
"22. To the aforesaid principles we may add some more guidelines
taking note of the present day scenario. They are:
22.1. (a) An application for condonation of delay should be drafted
with careful concern and not in a haphazard manner harbouring the
notion that the courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of
the principle that adjudication of a lis on
merits is seminal to justice dispensation system.
22.2. (b) An application for condonation of delay should not be dealt
with in a routine manner on the base of individual philosophy which is
basically subjective.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5484/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025
undefined
22.3. (c) Though no precise formula can be laid down regard being had
to the concept of judicial discretion, yet a conscious effort for achieving
consistency and collegiality of the adjudicatory system should be made
as that is the ultimate institutional motto.
22.4. (d) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non-serious
matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a
nonchalant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal
parameters."
8. Further, in the case of Union of India (supra), the Hon'ble
Apex Court has observed in paragraph No.35, which is
reproduced as under;
"35. In a plethora of decisions of this Court, it has been said that delay
should not be excused as a matter of generosity. Rendering substantial
justice is not to cause prejudice to the opposite party. The appellants
have failed to prove that they were reasonably diligent in prosecuting the
matter and this vital test for condoning the delay is not satisfied in this
case".
9. Resultantly, applications are devoid of merits and the same
are dismissed.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
RINKU MALI
