Gujarat High Court
Ramesh Popatbhai vs Deputy Collector Land Acquisition And ... on 18 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1701/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1701 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 6535 of 2025
==========================================================
RAMESH POPATBHAI
Versus
DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION &
ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR GM AMIN(124) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RAHUL DAVE, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 18/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Mr.Rahul Dave
waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of State.
2. Learned advocate Mr.G.M.Amin submits that in the
identically situated case arising out of the same
acquisition proceedings, this Court has passed an order
on 19.06.2025 whereby all the appeals are admitted.
Learned advocate Mr.G.M.Amin submits that the
claimants shall not press for interest for the said period
of delay.
3. Per contra, learned AGP Mr.Rahul Dave 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1701/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
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. This Court has also referred to 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. This Court has also referred to the decision
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Huchanagouda V/s. Assistant Commissioner and
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1701/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
prejudice to the acquiring authorities, as also no undue
advantage to the land loser. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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
pronouncement of the impugned judgment and award
till the date of filing of the present appeal.
7. Copy of this order shall be placed in the docket of the
first appeal. Rule is made absolute.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
MOHMMEDSHAHID
