Gujarat High Court
Jerambhai Dayabhai vs State Of Gujarat on 1 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1803/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1803 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 16594 of 2021
==========================================================
JERAMBHAI DAYABHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KRUSHNAKANT D PATEL(10632) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR TEJAS P SATTA(3149) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS.DHARITRI PANCHOLI AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 01/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of present application filed under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the applicant has
prayed to condone delay of 782 days caused in preferring
captioned First Appeal on the reasons stated in the
application.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Tejas Satta for the
applicant and learned AGP for the respondent - State.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted
that applicant is aggrieved by the judgment dated
13.02.2019 and decree dated 19.02.2019 passed in Land
Acquisition Reference (LAR) Case No.71 of 2017 in Group
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1803/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2025
undefined
of LAR Case Nos.70 to 91 of 2017 by learned Principal
Senior Civil Judge, Rajula. It is contended that the appeal
was filed in the year 2021. However, due to non-removal
of office objections, First Appeal came to be dismissed for
default in the year 2022. Thereafter, vide order dated
13.03.2025, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court restored
the First Appeal.
3.1 It is contended by learned advocate for the
applicant that the delay occurred because the acquiring
body failed to deposit the compensation within a
reasonable time. The applicant was waiting for
compensation to be deposited by the acquiring body.
Moreover, the additional compensation which has been
awarded by the learned Reference Court is too meager and
other claimants of the same group have also preferred the
First Appeals challenging the impugned award. The time
was also consumed in consulting the Counsels and
obtaining necessary documents from the reference
proceedings.
3.2 It is further contended that the present
applicant is unaware of the provisions of law, which could
permit him to file appeal, which is a statutory right. He
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1803/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2025
undefined
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 applicant is not claiming his right
for the interest upon the enhanced compensation, if any,
for the delay period. Except the above, no other
submissions are canvassed by learned advocate for the
applicant.
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, the conduct of applicant is such that present
application may be dismissed.
5. I have considered the submissions canvassed by
learned advocates for the respective parties and averments
made in the application. It appears that the compensation
was not deposited by the acquiring body till 2019, and the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1803/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2025
undefined
applicant being a poor agriculturist was waiting for
compensation to be received by him. Though, the appeal
was preferred in the year 2021 but due to non-removal of
office objections, appeal came to be dismissed. However,
the appeal was restored in the year 2025. The contention
that the claimant is ready and willing to forgo and let go
interest for the delayed period, would weigh this Court in
taking a lenient view in the given set of facts. The
sufficient cause has been made out for condoning the
delay. One of the reason for taking lenient view in the
proceeding is that the amount of compensation was not
deposited by the acquiring body till 2019.
6. 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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1803/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2025
undefined
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:-
"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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1803/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2025
undefined
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 application seeking
condonation of delay deserves consideration. However, the
claimant(s) would not be entitled to claim interest on the
enhanced amount of compensation, if any, during the
delay period.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1803/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2025
undefined
9. In the result, present Application is allowed and
delay caused in preferring captioned First Appeal is hereby
condoned. However it is made clear that the applicants
shall waive the claim of interest for the period of delay
caused in preferring the First Appeal on any enhanced
amount of award, if any. Rule is made absolute. No order
as to costs.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
MANOJ
