Gujarat High Court
Goswami Jagdishgiri Jivangiri vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 26 June, 2025
Author: Sangeeta K. Vishen
Bench: Sangeeta K. Vishen
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2596/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 2596 of
2025
In F/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 7332 of 2022
==========================================================
GOSWAMI JAGDISHGIRI JIVANGIRI
Versus
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ADITYA J. PANDYA FOR MS.SHIVANI V TRIVEDI(7225) for the
Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SIDDHARTH RAMI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MS NANCY SONI FOR M/S TRIVEDI & GUPTA(949) for the Respondent(s)
No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 26/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN)
1. By this application, the applicants, have prayed for condoning
the delay of 1388 days caused in preferring the cross objectiton.
2. Issue Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr Siddharth Rami, learned
Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule on
behalf of respondent no.1 and Ms Nancy Soni, learned advocate
waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent no.2.
3. Mr Aditya J. Pandya, learned advocate for Ms Shivani V.
Trivedi, learned advocate for the applicant, submitted that appeal
has been filed by the State which, was admitted on 16.04.2018. It is
further submitted that after the reference was decided, amount has
been deposited. Initially, the claimant was not having sufficient
funds to undertake the expenses for preferring the cross objection,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2596/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
making the payment of lawyer's fees, court fees etc; upon receiving
the amount, the claimant, since has taken loan, he has repaid the
loan and it was decided to prefer the cross objection for
enhancement of the compensation. It is urged that the applicant is
an agriculturist and unaware about the nuances of the steps to be
taken for the purpose of filing the cross objection. It is therefore
urged that the delay being bona fide, the same, be condoned, upon
assurance extended by the claimant, that the claimant shall not
claim interest for the delayed period on the enhanced amount of the
compensation.
4. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Dhiraj Singh (D) through Lrs. Etc. vs. Haryana State & Ors.
etc. reported in (2014) 14 SCC 127. Further reliance is placed on the
judgment in the case of Ningappa Thotappa Angadi Dead Through
Lrs. vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer & Another reported in
(2020) 19 SCC 599. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the
case of K. Subbarayudu & Others vs. Special Deputy Collector (Land
Acquisition) reported in 2017 (12) SCC 840.
5. Mr Siddharth Rami, learned Assistant Government Pleader and
Ms Nancy Soni, learned advocate, submitted that the delay is huge;
however, considering the assurance given by the original claimant
of waiving the interest for the period of delay, the delay be
condoned.
6. The application, is with a delay of 1388 days caused in
preferring the cross objection. The explanation offered by the
claimant, is want of funds so as to take care of the expenses to be
incurred for the purpose of filing the cross objection, making the
payment of lawyer's fees, court fees etc. Besides, applicant-
claimant claims to be a villager and has been undertaking the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2596/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
agricultural activities and has been unaware about the nuances of
the steps to be taken. After repaying the necessary loan from the
amount of compensation which was received, that the decision was
taken after discussing it with the family members as to file cross
objection or not. Ultimately, cross objection has been filed after
taking necessary steps, namely, gather and providing information,
collecting the papers, engaging the lawyer and the cross objection
could be filed with a delay of 1388 days. It is also declared before
this Court that the claimant shall not claim interest for the delayed
period on the enhanced amount of compensation.
7. In the case of Ningappa Thotappa Angadi Dead Through Lrs.
vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer & Another (supra), the Apex
Court, has held and 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2596/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
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 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."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2596/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
8. Also, in the case of K. Subbarayudu & Others vs. Special
Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) (supra), 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2596/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
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 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."
9. Considering the explanation offered, this Court, is of the
opinion that the same deserves to be accepted and the delay of
1388 days caused in filing cross objection, requires to be condoned
and is accordingly condoned on condition that the claimant shall not
claim interest for the delayed period on the enhanced amount of
compensation.
10. Civil application succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Rule is
made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
11. Copy of the order shall be placed in the record of First Appeal.
(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J)
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
RAVI P. PATEL
