Gujarat High Court
Koli Ramaji Madhaji vs Special Land Acquisition Officer, ... on 21 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5033/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5033 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 24641 of 2025
==========================================================
KOLI RAMAJI MADHAJI
Versus
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, DEESA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RAKESH R PATEL(3239) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR.RAHUL DAVE, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 21/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. This application is filed seeking condonation of a delay of
949 days in preferring the First Appeal. The applicant-
claimant has made the following averments in
paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the application:-
"2. It is respectfully submitted that reference under section 18 of
the land acquisition act, 1894 was filed in the year 2006 before
the Hon'ble Principal Senior Civil Judge, Deesa Dist: Banaskantha
and it was registered as LAR no. 29/2006 (old). However,
subsequently, case was transferred to the court of Hon'ble
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Deodar Dist: Banaskantha and was
given new LAR number being LAR no. 28/2017..
3. It is submitted that the above referred case was listed for
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5033/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
hearing after so many years before the Hon'ble Principal Senior
Civil Judge, Deodar. That the appellant being an agriculturist,
illiterate villager and residing in the interior part of Banaskantha
district had no any much resources and thereby had relied upon
the co-villagers-claimants and the concerned advocate who was
engaged by the appellant with other similarly situated farmers at
the relevant time. However, the concerned advocate had not
informed the applicant about any hearing or anything. That on the
date of hearing, in absence of advocate, the case of the appellant
could not be represented and hence, in absence of any evidence,
the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Deodar, Dist: Banaskantha
by Judgment and Award dated 26/09/2022 was pleased to
dismissed the Reference of the original claimant, appellant herein.
4. The applicant submit that by taking some legal advice, on
20/08/2024 had applied the certified copy of the impugned
judgement and order which was received on 2/9/2024..
5. It is respectfully submitted that the applicant is the poor,
illiterate agriculturist and hence was not in position to afford fees
of lawyer for to file appeal in the Hon'ble Gujarat high court.
Therefore, he waited for other similarly situated claimants of the
same land acquisition case and to file cases as group case to avoid
financial burden. More particularly when the LAR of the applicant
has been dismissed and thereby not awarded any amount, the
applicant has no any fund. That so far as other claimants of the
same land acquisition case is concerned, it is submitted that since
the main claimant of respective case expired during the pendency
of reference case, respective legal heirs had filed appropriate
applications to bring the legal heirs on record. Subsequent to the
aforesaid, other claimants applied for certified copy of amended
award and decree on 20/08/2024 and the same is received on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5033/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
22/08/2024.
6. The applicant submits that there is no any deliberate delay on
the part of the applicants. However, if the delay caused in filing
appeal is condone, no grate prejudice will cause to the other
side."
2. Learned Advocate Mr. Patel submits that the advocate
earlier engaged by the claimants did not remain present
before the learned Reference Court, resulting in the
dismissal of the reference cases. Consequently, the
Reference Court confirmed the award passed by the
Land Acquisition Officer, who had assessed the market
value and granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 2.50
per square meter. Learned Advocate Mr. Patel further
submits that, in identically situated cases, the same
Reference Court has awarded compensation at the rate
of Rs. 56/- per square meter. However, due to the
absence of the learned advocate, the present reference
cases came to be rejected. Learned Advocate Mr. Patel
submits that if the present delay application, as well as
the First Appeals, are allowed and the references are
restored to their original files, the applicants shall not
claim interest for the period commencing from the date
of framing of issues until the filing of the First Appeals.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5033/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
In the aforesaid background, learned Advocate prays
that the present application be allowed and the delay of
949 days be condoned.
3. Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by
learned Advocate Ms. Amin, who submits that the entire
judicial machinery cannot be set into motion merely on
account of an alleged lapse on the part of the advocate.
Learned Advocate Ms. Amin further submits that no
evidence has been placed on record to show that any
steps were taken against the concerned advocate, and
that the applicant has failed to demonstrate due
diligence or vigilance in following up the matter with the
advocate. Therefore, the delay cannot be condoned
solely on such grounds. In this background, learned
Advocate Ms. Amin prays that the present application be
dismissed.
4. Having considered the submissions advanced by the
learned advocates for the respective parties, it emerges
that the present matters pertain to compulsory
acquisition, whereby the claimants have lost their
valuable land. The claimants, being illiterate, were
entitled to higher compensation; however, they were
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5033/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
awarded only a meagre amount by the Land Acquisition
Officer. Owing to the lapse on the part of the learned
advocate representing them, the said award came to be
upheld in the Land Reference Cases.
5. Considering the averments made in the application and
the submissions advanced by the learned advocates, this
Court is of the opinion that the application deserves to
be allowed, with the clarification that the applicant shall
not be entitled to claim interest, in the event of
succeeding in the First Appeal as well as in the Land
Reference Cases, for the period commencing from the
date of framing of the issues until the date of filing of the
First Appeal.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
NIVYA A. NAIR
