Gujarat High Court
Pagi Vikasbhai Jesangbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 6 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3711/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 3711 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 15716 of 2025
==========================================================
PAGI VIKASBHAI JESANGBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AADITYA P DAVE(11461) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR BHAVESH DESAI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 06/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of present application filed under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act, 1963 the applicants have prayed to
condone delay of 47 days caused in preferring captioned
First Appeal on the reasons stated in the application.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Aaditya Dave for the
applicant and learned AGP Mr. Bhavesh Desai for the
respondent - State.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3711/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
delay in occasion as the applicants took time in seeking legal
assistance. The applicants being illiterate agriculturist are not
well verse with the legal intricacy. It is further contended that
there is no intentional delay on the part of the applicants. The
applicants have good case both on facts as well as in law.
4. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader
while opposing this application, would submit that delay is
not sufficiently explained. It is contended that applicant
has not remained vigilant in challenging the impugned
Award. It is further contended that the averments made in
the application are too general, and considering the period
of delay, application may be dismissed.
5. Considering the aforesaid facts and decisions of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Collector, Land
Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs. Mrs. Katji and Ors.
reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353, wherein the Hon'ble Apex
Court has observed as under:-
"1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3711/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
lodging an appeal late.
2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a
meritorious matter being thrown out at the very
threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against
this when delay is condoned the highest that can
happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after
hearing the parties.
3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not
mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why
not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The
doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense
pragmatic manner.
4. When substantial justice and technical
considerations are pitted against each other, cause of
substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other
side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being
done because of a nondeliberate delay.
5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned
deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or
on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to
benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious
risk.
6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not
on account of its power to legalize injustice on
technical grounds but because it is capable of removing
injustice and is expected to do so."
6. With profit, I may also refer judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Dhiraj Singh (Dead) Through
Legal Heirs Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. reported in 2014
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3711/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
(14) SCC 127, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has
observed thus:-
"we can take judicial notice of the fact that villagers in
our country are by and large illiterate and are not
conversant with the intricacies of law. They are usually
guided by their covillagers, who are familiar with the
proceedings in the Courts or the advocates with whom
they get in touch for redressal of their grievance.
Affidavits filed in support of the applications for
condonation of delay are usually drafted by the
advocates on the basis of halfbaked information made
available by the affected persons. Therefore, in the
acquisition matters involving claim for award of just
compensation, the Court should adopt a liberal
approach and either grant time to the party to file
better affidavit to explain delay or suo motu take
cognizance of the fact that large number of other
similarly situated persons who were affected by the
determination of compensation by the Land Acquisition
Officer, or the Reference Court have been granted
relief." In Samiyathal v. Tahsildar decided on 5-7- 2013,
this Court took cognizance of the fact that many
landowners may not have been able to seek intervention
of this Court for grant of enhanced compensation due to
illiteracy, poverty and ignorance and issued direction
that those who have not filed special leave petition
should be given enhanced compensation."
7. Applying the ratio of aforestated judgment and
in background of the facts of the present case as well as
considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in case of K. Subbarayadu (Supra), the application seeking
condonation of delay deserves consideration. However, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3711/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
claimant(s) would not be entitled to claim interest on the
enhanced amount of compensation, if any, during the
delay period.
8. In absence of any context in an application and
considering the averments made in the application sufficient
cause is made out for condoning the delay. In the result,
present Application is allowed and delay caused in preferring
captioned First Appeal is hereby condoned. Civil application
disposed off. No order as to costs.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
KKN
