Gujarat High Court
Hiralal Laljibhai Pambhar vs State Of Gujarat on 18 June, 2025
Author: Sangeeta K. Vishen
Bench: Sangeeta K. Vishen
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1657/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1657 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 27006 of 2021
==========================================================
HIRALAL LALJIBHAI PAMBHAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TEJAS P SATTA(3149) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS RAJVI SHAH, LEARNED AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 18/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN)
1. By this application, the applicant, has prayed for
condoning the delay of 621 days caused in preferring the
captioned first appeal whereby, challenge is to the judgment
dated 17.03.2018 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil
Judge in Land Acquisition Reference No.814 of 2004 and
other allied matters.
2. Mr. Tejas Satta, learned Advocate, has taken this Court
to the averments made in the application. It is submitted that
the claimant, is agriculturist and daily wage earner from the
agricultural activities. The applicant, could barely sustain his
family and is not very much aware about the nuances of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1657/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025
undefined
proceedings to be taken in connection with the acquisition by
which the lands have been acquired. Being poor agriculturist
residing in the remote village, and belonging to the
economically weaker section of the society with little or no
education, he could not take prompt steps. After struggling,
the applicant, has filed an application. Since it was not with
all the accurate information and details, request was made for
withdrawal which was granted by this Court by passing an
order dated 05.09.2023. It is submitted that again the
claimant was tried to be approached and with great difficulty,
further information was obtained and thereafter, the
application has been filed with further correct, accurate and
detailed information. Request is made that considering the
delay being bona fide, the same, may be condoned. It is stated
at bar, that the applicant shall not claim the interest for the
period of delay in case this Court were to enhance the
compensation.
3. 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.
4. Ms. Rajvi Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader
has submitted that delay is huge inasmuch as, the judgment
is of the year 2018 whereas, application and appeal are filed
with the delay of almost 621 days. It is urged that if this
Court were to condone the delay, atleast the claimant, shall
not claim interest for the period of delay which has occurred
in preferring the appeal.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1657/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025
undefined
5. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the
respective parties.
6. Captioned application has been filed with a prayer to
condone the delay of 621 days by the claimant who claims to
be the agriculturist residing in the remote village. It is also
averred that claimant belongs to economically weaker section
of the society and with little to no education, and was not
aware about the nuances and niceties of taking steps in
connection with the judgment rendered in the acquisition
proceedings. With these limitations, the claimant, still tried to
take advice of the learned advocate but again the limitation of
the financial resources, could not allow the claimant, to take
prompt and immediate steps. After struggling, both
financially and psychologically, that the steps were taken and
the application has been filed; however, the delay could not
be explained properly and hence, the application was
withdrawn with a liberty to provide further details and after
taking necessary steps, gathering information and further
details, that the delay has been explained.
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 claimant that the claimant 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1657/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025
undefined
observed that if the claimants are identically situated, there is
no reason to meet out a different treatment to them. It has
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1657/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025
undefined
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1657/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025
undefined
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1657/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025
undefined
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 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, accepting the
explanation and finding it sufficient, the delay 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.
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)
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
HARSHIT
