Gujarat High Court
Deceased Koli Gemra Mashru Through His ... vs State Of Gujarat on 13 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3622/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 3622 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 16591 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3799 of 2025
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 21370 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3800 of 2025
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 21368 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3803 of 2025
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 21362 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3804 of 2025
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 21355 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3805 of 2025
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 21357 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3806 of 2025
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 21448 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3807 of 2025
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 21364 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3808 of 2025
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 21360 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3811 of 2025
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 21451 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3816 of 2025
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 21454 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3826 of 2025
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 21444 of 2025
==========================================================
DECEASED KOLI GEMRA MASHRU THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS & ORS.
Page 1 of 7
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 01:51:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3622/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2025
undefined
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RAKESH R PATEL(3239) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3
MR.BHAVES DESAI AGP APPEARED IN C.A.No.3622 OF 2025
MR.RAHUL DAVE AGP APPEARED IN C.A.Nos.3799, 3800 OF 2025, 3803
TO 308 OF 2025, 3811, 3816 & 3826 OF 2025
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
MS ARCHANA R ACHARYA(2475) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 13/10/2025
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. The present Civil Applications are filed under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act,1963 for condonation of
delay of 865 days caused in preferring the First Appeal
No.3622 of 2025 and 921 days in preferring the other
captioned First Appeal.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Rakesh Patel for the
applicants, learned advocate Ms.Archana Acharya for
respondent No.3 in respective matter and learned AGP for
the respondent-State.
3. Learned advocate for the applicants submitted
that the Award came to be passed on 27.09.2022 by the
learned Civil Judge, Deodar in group LAR Nos.43 to 55 of
2017 and group LAR Nos.4 to 14 of 2017. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3622/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2025
undefined
compensation was deposited on 09.11.2023 and 16.02.2024
which was disbursed to the claimants in the month of
March, 2024 onwards. It is further submitted that the
claimant/s expired during the pendency of the Reference
and therefore necessary application came to be filed by the
legal heirs of the respective deceased - claimant to bring
on record the legal heirs/representatives of the deceased.
Thereafter, application for bringing on record the legal
heirs of respective claimant/s came to be allowed. It is
further submitted that the delay is not intentional and
there was no lethargy on the part of the applicants.
It is further submitted that the present
applicants are unaware of the provisions of law, which
could permit him to file appeal, which is a statutory right.
He has produced decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case
of K. Subbarayadu and others Vs. The Special Deputy Collector
(Land Acquisition) reported in 2017(12) SCC 840 and would
submit that considering the law laid down in
aforementioned case, the applicants are not claiming their
right for the interest upon the enhanced compensation, if
any, for the delay period.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3622/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2025
undefined
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader while
opposing this application, would submit that delay is not
sufficiently explained and therefore, present applications
may be dismissed.
5. Learned advocate for respondent No.3 has
vehemently objected and submitted that the reasons
assigned in the application are not sufficient. Learned
advocate for respondent No.3 has also relied upon the
Affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No.3 and
contended that the applicants have not made out the
single sufficient cause to condone the delay. Therefore, the
present applications may be dismissed.
6. Heard learned Advocates for the respective
parties and perused the documents on record and also
perused the 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
lodging an appeal late.
2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3622/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2025
undefined
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."
7. 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
(14) SCC 127, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has
observed thus:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3622/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2025
undefined
"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."
8. 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 applications seeking
condonation of delay deserve consideration. However, the
claimant(s) would not be entitled to claim interest on the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3622/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2025
undefined
enhanced amount of compensation, if any, during the
delay period.
9. In the result, present Applications are allowed
and delay caused in preferring captioned First Appeal is
hereby condoned. However it is made clear that the
applicants/claimants shall waive the claim of interest for
the period of delay caused in preferring the First Appeal
on enhanced amount of award if any. Rule is made
absolute. No order as to costs.
10 Registry shall place a copy of this order in each
matter.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
MANOJ
