Gujarat High Court
Champaben Nanjibhai Sandhani vs The State Of Gujarat on 21 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4579/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4579 of
2025
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4225 of 2025
==========================================================
CHAMPABEN NANJIBHAI SANDHANI & ORS.
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KRUSHNAKANT D PATEL(10632) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR TEJAS P SATTA(3149) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
RAHUL DAVE AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 21/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Mr. Dave waives
service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1.
2. Learned advocate Mr. Satta for the applicants submits that
the other claimants of the same group, whose lands are
also acquired under the same acquisition, have approached
this Court by filing the first appeals, which are admitted by
this Court and the same are pending for filing adjudication.
Learned advocate Mr. Satta submits that the original
claimant was the person who was handling the proceedings
before the learned Reference Court and the heirs were
unaware about such proceedings and on getting the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4579/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
information with regard to the first appeals which are filed
by the identically situated claimant, the present first appeal
is filed; however, in filing this appeal, delay of 2320 days
has caused. Learned advocate Mr. Satta submits that it is a
case of compulsory acquisition, wherein the claimant has
lost his land. Learned advocate Mr. Satta further submits
that he would not claim interest in the event of succeeding
in the first appeal for the delayed period and therefore, he
prays that this application may be allowed.
3. Per contra, learned AGP Mr. 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. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4579/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
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
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 in the application and the
submissions made in the above paragraph No.2, this Court
is of the considered view that the application requires to be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4579/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
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.
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4225 of 2025
ADMIT.
To be heard with First appeal No.677 of 2023.
Let the record and proceedings be called for so as to reach
this Court from concerned Court
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
Vikramsinh Amarsinh
