Gujarat High Court
Nathabhai Naranbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 10 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3894/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 3894 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 26117 of 2024
==========================================================
NATHABHAI NARANBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR.BHAVESH DESAI,AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 10/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. Learned AGP Mr. Bhavesh Desai waives service of
notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No.1.
2. Learned advocate Mr. Hemal Shah submits that injustice
is caused due to wrong calculation made by learned
Reference Court in deducting 30% instead of deducting
10% every year from the date of publication of award,
which was passed in other case. Learned advocate
Mr.Hemal Shah submits in the application that the
applicants being unaware of procedural formalities and
the time limits prescribed for filing appeals, was delayed
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3894/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
in approaching competent legal counsel and preparing
the necessary documentation. The present appeal is filed
for condonation of delay of 1691 days. Learned advocate
Mr.Hemal Shah submits that the claimants shall not
press for interest for the said period of delay.
3. Per contra, learned AGP Mr. Bhavesh Desai has opposed
the application for condonation of delay.
4. This Court has referred to the decision rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suresh Kumar V/s.
State of Haryana and Others reported in 2025 SCC
Online SC 896, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has
held that even though there was long delay in filing the
appeals, it was a case of compulsory acquisition and
there had been a difference in the amount of
compensation granted to some land losers vis-a-vis
others. Relying on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Market Committee Hodal
V/s. Krishan Murari, reported in 1996 (1) SC 311,
wherein delay of 3240 days arising from the same
acquisition had been condoned. The Hon'ble Apex Court
has also relied on the decision rendered in the case of
Huchanagouda V/s. Assistant Commissioner and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3894/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
Land Acquisition Officer, reported in 2020 (19)
SCC 236, wherein the Court had taken into account the
poverty and illiteracy of the land loser and condoned the
delay of more than 2,000 days. While condoning the
delay, the Hon'ble Apex Court had observed that
equities had to be balanced by ensuring that the
determination of market value relates back to the
preliminary notification - making sure that there is no
prejudice to the acquiring authorities, as also no undue
advantage to the land loser.
4.1. It is observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the
appellants who approached the Court with delay, would
not be granted interest for such period. Having
considered the explanation offered and the submissions
made in the above paragraph No.2, this Court is of the
considered view that the application requires to be
allowed and the delay is required to be condoned. In
that background, the application is allowed.
5. It is needless to clarify that the applicants-original
claimants shall not be entitled to the interest in event of
the enhancement amount of compensation, if any, for
the interregnum period i.e. from the date of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3894/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
pronouncement of the impugned judgment and award
till the date of filing of the present appeal.
6. Copy of this order shall be placed in the docket of the
first appeal. Rule is made absolute.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
ARCHANA S. PILLAI
