Gujarat High Court
Gopalbhai Narshibhai vs Deputy Collector on 27 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/6197/2024 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 6197 of
2024
In F/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 35687 of 2024
================================================================
GOPALBHAI NARSHIBHAI
Versus
DEPUTY COLLECTOR & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR KRUSHNAKANT D PATEL(10632) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR TEJAS P SATTA(3149) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RAHUL K DAVE, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 27/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. This is an application, filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of 827 days,
caused in preferring the restoration application.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Krushnakant D. Patel for the
applicant and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Rahul
K. Dave for respondent-State.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that due
to non-removal of office objections, the matter was dismissed
for non-removal of office objections. It is further submitted that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/6197/2024 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
applicant has no legal knowledge and does not understand the
intricacies of law. It is further submitted that applicant has good
case on merits as well as on law. It is further submitted that
applicant is now ready and willing to remove all office
objections within a period of one week from the date of receipt
of copy of this order. It is further submitted that delay may be
condoned as there is no intentional delay on the part of the
applicant. Learned advocate for the applicant has produced
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 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.
4. Learned AGP while opposing this application, would
submit that delay is not sufficiently explained and therefore,
present application may be dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/6197/2024 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
5. 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
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 non-deliberate 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."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/6197/2024 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
6. With profit, I may also refer to the 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 advocates on the
basis of half baked 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."
7. Applying the ratio of aforestated 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/6197/2024 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
Subbarayadu (supra), the application seeking condonation of
delay in preferring restoration application deserves
consideration subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/-.
However, the claimant would not be entitled to claim interest on
the enhanced amount of compensation, if any, during the delay
period. Resultantly, delay is condoned subject to deposit the
amount of Rs.5000/- before the Gujarat State Legal Services
Authority, within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of
the copy of this order.
8. Accordingly, present Civil Application stands disposed of.
Rule is made absolute.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
RINKU MALI
