Gujarat High Court

Koli Samuben Umaji (Deceased) vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 30 June, 2025

                                                                                                          NEUTRAL CITATION




                               C/CA/1694/2024                            ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025
                                                                                                          undefined




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                          R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1694 of
                                                        2024
                                         In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 23229 of 2023
                       ================================================================
                                          KOLI SAMUBEN UMAJI (DECEASED) & ORS.
                                                         Versus
                                         SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ORS.
                       ================================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR KEYUR A VYAS(3247) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
                       MR RAHUL K DAVE, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
                       MR PARV S GUPTA(11850) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
                       ================================================================
                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI

                                                     Date : 30/06/2025

                                                      ORAL ORDER

1. This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation

Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 1754 days, caused in

preferring the appeal.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Keyur A. Vyas for the

applicants, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Rahul

Dave for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned advocate Mr. Parv

S. Gupta for respondent No.3.

3. Learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that

applicants have challenged the judgment and award dated

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/1694/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined

03.08.2016 passed by learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Palanpur, Banaskantha in Land Acquisition Reference Case

Nos.148 to 156 of 2000. It is contended that the amount of

compensation deposited by the acquiring body, was withdrawn

by claimants somewhere in the year 2017-18. However, the date

is not available with the learned advocate for the applicants. The

grounds contemplating sufficient cause are narrated in paragraph

No.4 of the application. The only ground for delay is

insufficiency of funds to pay necessary Court Fee. Applicants,

as per the learned advocate for the applicants, because of

insufficient knowledge about the law and the circumstances

beyond the control of applicants could not prefer an appeal

within the prescribed period of limitation. It is further submitted

that there is no willful default or negligence on the part of the

applicants. It is further contended that out of group of Land

Acquisition Reference Case Nos.148 to 156 of 2000, many

claimants have filed First Appeal with an application for

condonation of delay and the delay has been condoned by the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/1694/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Therefore, also delay may be

condoned.

4. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the

respondents has objected in granting application and contended

that no sufficient case is made out by applicants in explaining

the period of delay. It is further submitted that judgment and

award in the group of Land Acquisition Reference Cases is

dated 03.08.2016 and the appeal filed is on 07.08.2023 with an

application for condonation of delay. It is contended that the

certified copy of the impugned judgment and award was

received on 17.03.2018 and thereafter, applicants remained

inactive in challenging the impugned judgment and award.

5. On the other hand, learned advocate for respondent No.3-

Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. has also objected in

granting the application for condonation of delay and has relied

upon decision in the case of Brijesh Kumar and Ors. versus

State of Haryana and Ors. reported in (2014) 11 SCC 351 and

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/1694/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined

contended that while allowing an application for condonation of

delay, Court has to draw a distinction between the delay and

inordinate delay for want of bonafides of an inaction or

negligence. In the present case, applicants have remained silent

after receiving certified copy on 17.03.2018. The inaction for a

period of almost five years in challenging the impugned

judgment and award is a gross delay without any explanation.

The explanation assigned by applicants in the application are not

sufficient cause considering the conduct of the applicants. An

application for certified copy of impugned award was made after

lapse of period of limitation to prefer appeal. Merely because in

other land Reference Cases, claimants have preferred First

appeal is not a ground for condonation of delay.

6. I have considered submissions canvassed by the learned

advocates for the respective parties and also perused the

application for condonation of delay. Undisputedly, claimants-

applicants have challenged the judgment and award dated

03.08.2016 passed in group of Land Acquisition Reference Case

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/1694/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined

Nos.148 to 156 of 2000. The present First Appeal is arising out

of Land Acquisition Reference Case No.153 of 2000. As per

the submission of learned advocate for the applicants that the

amount of compensation has been withdrawn by applicants in

the year 2017-18. The application for certified copy of the

impugned judgment and award was made on 08.03.2018 and the

certified copy was ready for delivery on 14.03.2018. The

certified copy was received by claimants on 17.03.2018. When

the application is perused there is no worth name explanation

explaining the period between 14.03.2018 till filing of the

present First Appeal i.e. 07.08.2023. The only explanation tried

to be canvassed by applicants is want of sufficient funds for

arranging Court Fees. However, from the submission of learned

advocate for the applicants, it appears that the scarcity of funds

is not a sufficient cause in the present case for the reason that in

the year 2017-18, the amount of compensation has been

received by claimants. It appears that claimants are fence sitter

and waited for other claimants to get higher amount of

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/1694/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined

compensation. The conduct of the applicants, in the present

case, is not bonafide. When the application for certified copy is

not given within the period of limitation, which suggests apathy

and negligence on the part of the applicants.

7. In the case of Brijesh Kumar and Ors. (supra), the

Hon'ble Apex has observed in paragraph Nos.11, 12 and 13 of

the said decision, which is as under:-

"11. It is also a well-settled principle of law that if some person has taken a relief approaching the court just or immediately after the cause of action had arisen, other persons cannot take benefit thereof approaching the court at a belated stage for the reason that they cannot be permitted to take the impetus of the order passed at the behest of some diligent person.

12. In State of Karnataka v. S.M. Kotrayya9 this Court rejected the contention that a petition should be considered ignoring the delay and laches on the ground that he filed the petition just after coming to know of the relief granted by the court in a similar case as the same cannot furnish a proper explanation for delay and laches. The Court observed that such a plea is wholly unjustified and cannot furnish any ground for ignoring delay and laches.

13. The same view has been reiterated by this Court in Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana10, observing as under:-

18. ...Suffice it to state that appellants kept sleeping over their rights for long and elected to wake-up when they had the impetus from Vir Pal Chauhan11 and Ajit Singh's12 ratios...Therefore desperate attempts of the appellants to redo the seniority, held by them in various cadre.... are not amenable to the judicial review at this belated stage. The High Court, therefore, has rightly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay as well."

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/1694/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined

8. In the case of State of Gujarat Versus Dahayabhai

Nyalchand Vora reported in 2014 (0) AIJEL-HC 236088, the

Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in paragraph No.6 of the said

decision.

"6. Turning to the explanation offered in the present case, in light of the above parameters set by the Apex Court, it was conspicuously noticed that judgment sought to be challenged was delivered on 14th October, 2011, however the certified copy was applied after more than six months. In other words, even the certified copy was not applied within the period of limitation. The limitation had already expired when the Departmental realised that certified copy was not available and the same was required to be obtained. When the telegram was sent by officer concerned for applying certified copy, the papers had reached Government Pleader's office for drafting and actual filing. The officers of the Department cannot disclaim the knowledge of proceedings, requirements and in particular the period of limitation within which, the appeal could be required to be preferred.

6.1 In Office of the Chief Post Master General(supra), it was appropriately observed by the Apex Court that the persons concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter before the higher court. In that case the certified copy of the High Court's judgment was applied for only after four months by the Postal Department, who had preferred SLP before the Supreme Court.

6.2 It may be true that in a given or special case, late applying of certified copy may have good reason to be condoned. But, ordinarily and in all normal cases, the act of applying certified copy immediately or at least within the period of limitation after deliverance of the judgment proposed to be challenged, is an important measure of litigant's vigilance. It is also a reflection of intention to carry the case in appeal and agitate for his rights. This much amount of vigilance is expected, whether it is a private individual or a government department. Therefore, without making a rule of thumb, it can be safely stated that when the certified copy is not applied within the period of limitation, it suggests apathy and negligence on part of the litigant. In the present case, there is no

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/1694/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined

explanation for time gap between 14th October, 2011 and 21st April, 2012. Given this conduct of not applying the certified copy till the papers reached the office of the Government Pleader at High Court, the explanation about time taken in exhausting different decisional stages turned out to be the lame excuse, judicially not acceptable. Mere movement of files from one table to another and the stock ground of administrative procedure cannot furnish a good cause and a sufficient cause in all cases, unless the time consumed in the decision making process is shown to be bonafide.

6.3. Indolence on part of the applicants in the matter of preferring Appeal is further reinforced in view of uncontroverted fact that in the aforementioned writ petition filed by the respondent herein, certified copy of the judgment of the District Court sought to be impugned in the Second Appeal was placed on record of that petition as back as in December, 2011. The applicants herein who were respondents in the writ petition, were thus posted with knowledge. They were aware, yet they did not act in the matter. It was only after eight months that in July, 2012, Appeal and delay condonation Application was filed. The unexplained yawning gap between the date of judgment and applying of certified copy and the aforesaid aspect, is indicative of gross apathy and indolence on the part of the applicants and its officers."

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while considering an

application for condonation of delay has taken into

consideration the decision in the case of Chief Post Master

General and Ors. Versus Living Media India Limited, reported

in AIR 2012 SC 1506.

9. Considering the facts found from the record, it appears

that the conduct of the applicants is not bonafide and no

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/1694/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined

sufficient cause is made out therefore, I am of the view that the

application for condonation of delay is devoid of merits and

therefore, the same is dismissed.