Gujarat High Court
Karshan Jivraj vs The State Of Gujarat on 20 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5535/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5535 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 28736 of 2021
==========================================================
KARSHAN JIVRAJ & ANR.
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KRUSHNAKANT D PATEL(10632) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR TEJAS P SATTA(3149) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR.RAHUL DAVE, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 20/11/2025
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. Satta submits that as substantial
injustice has been caused to the applicants in awarding
compensation by the learned Reference Court, the delay
of 1280 days caused in filing the first appeal is condoned
by this Court. Learned advocate Mr. Satta 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5535/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
4. This Court has referred to the decision rendered by the
Apex Court in the case of Suresh Kumar V/s. State of
Haryana and Others reported in 2025 SCC Online
SC 896, wherein the 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 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 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 Apex Court had observed that equities had to
be balanced by ensuring that the determination of
market value relates back to the preliminary notification
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5535/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
- 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 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
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)
NIVYA A. NAIR
