Gujarat High Court
Labhuben Bhurabhai Kikani vs State Of Gujarat on 8 September, 2025
Author: Sangeeta K. Vishen
Bench: Sangeeta K. Vishen
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4350/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4350 of
2025
In F/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 23193 of 2025
==========================================================
LABHUBEN BHURABHAI KIKANI & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NITIN M AMIN(126) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR SANJAY M AMIN(130) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR SIDDHARTH RAMI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 08/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN)
Leave to amend paragraphs 2 and 3 is granted.
2. By this application, the applicants have prayed for condoning
the delay of 795 days caused in preferring the captioned Cross
Objection in First Appeal no.1533 of 2024.
3. Issue rule, returnable forthwith. Mr Siddharth Rami, learned
Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule on
behalf of the respondents.
4. Learned advocates have jointly submitted that in connected
group, this Court has been kind enough to condone the delay. It is
submitted that almost the explanation and the facts are common
inasmuch as, the appeal is arising out of the common judgment and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4350/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
the cross objection, is in the appeal filed by the State Government.
5. It is submitted that it is by now well-settled that the claimant,
who loses the land and is deprived of compensation for years to
come, cannot be expected to file the appeal promptly. Under the
circumstances, the delay and the non-filing of the appeal would be
good ground to condone the delay.
6. Mr Siddharth Rami, learned Assistant Government Pleader
states that the delay is huge; however, as the applicants have
agreed to waive the interest on the enhanced amount, appropriate
order be passed.
7. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties.
8. It is by now well-settled that while condoning the delay, liberal
approach be adopted. In the decision of the Apex Court in the case
of S. Ganesharaju (D) Thr. L. Rs. & another vs. Narasamma (D) Thr.
L. Rs. & Others reported in (2012) 4 SCALE 152, it has been held
and observed that the expression "sufficient cause" has to be given
a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. Unless
the respondents are able to point out or attribute any mala fides on
the part of the applicants in not approaching the Court within
limitation.
9. It is by now well-settled that in the matter of land acquisition
where land of claimants is acquired, a different approach needs to
be adopted inasmuch as, the claimants, need not be deprived of the
reasonable compensation for their lands. In the case of K.
Subbarayudu and Others vs. Special Deputy Collector (Land
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4350/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
Acquisition) reported in (2017) 12 SCC 840, the Apex Court, has
held and observed that with the acquisition of lands, the lifeline of
the agriculturist is lost. There may be omission on the part of the
claimants to adopt extra vigilance; but the same need not be used
as a ground to depict them with negligence or want of bona fides. In
the case of acquisition of lands of agriculturists, the Courts ought to
adopt a pragmatic approach to award just and reasonable
compensation and not be pedantic in their approach.
10. In view of the above, this Court, is of the opinion that the
delay, needs to be condoned on condition that the claimants shall
not claim interest on the enhanced amount of compensation for the
period of delay, if this Court were to allow the cross objection and
dismiss the First Appeal. In other words, no interest shall be claimed
by the applicants on the enhanced amount of compensation.
11. In view of the statement made at the bar, Civil Application
succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the
aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
12. Copy of this order, may be placed on record of the captioned
Cross Objection as well as First Appeal.
(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J)
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
BINOY B PILLAI
