Gujarat High Court

Patel Anadaji Pragji (Died On 9-8-17) vs Dy. Collector, Special Land ... on 15 September, 2025

                                                                                                              NEUTRAL CITATION




                             C/CA/3378/2025                                    ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025

                                                                                                               undefined




                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                        R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 3378 of
                                                   2025

                                              In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 673 of 2025

                      ==========================================================
                                 PATEL ANADAJI PRAGJI (DIED ON 9-8-17) & ORS.
                                                    Versus
                           DY. COLLECTOR, SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR VIRAL J DAVE(5751) for the Applicant(s) No.
                      1,1.1,1.2,1.3.1,1.3.2,1.3.3,1.3.4,1.3.5,1.3.6,1.4,2,3,4,4.1,4.2,4.3,4.4,4.5,4.6,5,
                      5.1,5.2,5.3,5.4,5.5,6,6.1,6.2,6.3,7,8
                      MR.RAHUL DAVE AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                      MR PARV S GUPTA(11850) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
                      ==========================================================

                        CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI

                                                      Date : 15/09/2025

                                                          ORAL ORDER

1. The present First Appeal is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for praying to condone the delay of 2722 days in filing First Appeal.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Viral J. Dave for the applicants, learned AGP Mr. Rahul Dave for the respondent-State and learned advocate Mr. Parv Gupta for respondent No.2. Perused the record.

3. It is submitted by learned advocate for the applicants that the challenge in the First Appeal is

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/3378/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025

undefined

against the judgment and award dated 24.04.2017 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Palanpur under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, hereinafter referred to as `the Act') in Land Reference Case No.638 of 2000 in group LAR Case Nos.637 to 662 of 2000. He further submitted that the land acquisition Officer, on 15-07- 2000 determined the market value at Rs.4.80 Paisa per square meter for irrigated lands and Rs.3.20 per square meter for non-irrigated lands. All the claimants challenged the award passed by the land acquisition Officer by way of LAR Nos.637 of 2000 to 662 of 2000. By common judgment and award, learned reference Court, Palanpur awarded additional compensation of Rs.20.16 paisa per square meter for irrigated and non-irrigated lands. This Court, while deciding first appeal of claimants so far as land of Ajavada has enhanced the compensation @ Rs.41/- per square meter. He has further contended that the said village Ajavada is having a common boundary with the village Naroli and the claimants of the present first

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/3378/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025

undefined

appeals are equally entitled to amount of Rs.41/- per square meter as compensation.

4. It is also contended that certified copy of the impugned judgment and award which was prepared on 28.10.2024 and delivered on the same day. The reasons for not applying the copy for obtaining certified copy within the limitation are narrated in the application for condonation of delay. As per the submission of learned advocate for the applicants, applicants are poor villagers and have no knowledge of law of limitation. The applicants came to know about the passing of the judgment and award. After few weeks of the pronouncement of judgment and award. Applicants could not take a prompt decision to challenge the judgment and award as there were difference of opinions amongst the claimants / applicants in taking a decision for challenging the judgment and award. The applicants, as per the submission of learned advocate for the applicants, are financially weak persons and they are dependents upon

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/3378/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025

undefined

the agricultural activities. The amount of compensation was deposited before the learned Reference Court in the year 2018 and, thereafter, the said amount was received by the claimants, but since the claimants had to spend the amount for social events like marriage, death, etc., they could not save the amount for expenses to be incurred for filing an appeal. Due to Covid-19 pandemic situation also applicants could not prefer the appeal.

5. Thereafter, in the year 2023-24, the applicants could sell agricultural products and out of such products, and by borrowing funds from the friends, preferred the captioned first appeals with applications for condonation of delay.

6. In support of his contention, learned advocate for the applicants has relied upon a decision dated 23.4.2025 in the case of Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana arising out of SLP (C) No.670 of 2020 and a decision Laxmi Narain v. State of Haryana arising out of

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/3378/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025

undefined

SLP © No.2832 of 2020. Fact before the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the cases of Suresh Kumar (Supra) and Laxmi Narain (Supra) was that the applicants took into

consideration cases concerning acquisitions in the same area, the compensation stood further enhanced in several petitions in terms of different judgments rendered by both the High Courts of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh and by the Honorable Supreme Court.

7. Applying the same ratio, it is submitted that when the landowners of village Ajavada received compensation at Rs.41/- per square meter, the present applicants are also claiming parity and considering the fact that the adjoining villages have received a higher amount of compensation, the claimants in the present applications are also entitled to such higher amount of compensation and, therefore, a lenient view be adopted and delay may be condoned in the interest of justice.

8. Learned advocate for respondent No.2 has

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/3378/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025

undefined

contested the application by submitting that the reasons assigned in the applications are not sufficient for condoning a gross delay. It is contended that from the averments made in the applications, it is an undisputed fact that the impugned judgment and award came to be passed on 24.4.2017 in a group of land reference cases and the compensation has been deposited in the year 2018 before the learned Reference Court which was received by claimants. It is also pointed out from the application that the claimants also knew about the pronouncement of the judgment and award, few weeks after 24.4.2017. The amount which was received by the claimants was sufficient to incur expenses to file first appeals. However, the claimants did not prefer any first appeal and waited for a long period of time whereby the conduct of the applicant is not a bonafide conduct.

9. Application lacks an explanation as to why the certified copy was not applied till 2024 i.e. for a period of almost 7 years. It is contended that merely

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/3378/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025

undefined

because some persons have obtained relief by approaching the Court, some orders are passed in favour of those persons, the present applicants cannot take advantage of such a situation by approaching the Court at a belated stage. Merely because some other persons obtained relief in similar matter or in a matter where similar issue has been cropped up, it does not mean that the persons are entitled to the same benefit. It is pointed out that the explanation has to be bonafide which has to be believed by the Court and in absence of any bonafide explanation, the Court has to decide whetherit is a bonafide explanation or not. In support of this contention, learned advocate for respondent No.2 has relied upon following decisions.

(a) Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs and others v. The Special Deputy Collector dated 8.4.2024 passed in Special Civil Petition (Civil) No.31248 of 2018 &

(b) Brijesh Kumar and others v. State of Haryana dated 24.3.2014 passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.6609-6613 of 2014

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/3378/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025

undefined

10. Learned AGP for the respondent - State has

contended that the certified copy of the impugned

judgment and award was applied by the claimants /

applicants after the expiry of period of limitation. Mere

poverty and lack of legal knowledge, as asserted by

the claimants in the application, is no ground to

establish a sufficient cause. Reliance is placed upon

following decision:

(a) Punaben Naran Hethvadiya Wd/o Naran Vira v. Shantaben Laghubhai W/o Laghubhai Ramji dated 29.2.2012 passed in Civil Application No.3395 of 2011 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.

11. I have considered the submissions canvassed

by the learned advocates for the respective parties and

also perused the papers placed on record.

12. It appears from the record that before

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/3378/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025

undefined

applying the certified copy of the impugned judgment

and award, amount of compensation was deposited by

respondent No.2 before the learned Reference Court in

2018 and the same was withdrawn by the claimants in

the same year. The explanation which are sought to be

canvassed by the applicants are mainly 3 fold (a) lack

of knowledge of law of limitation for filing the appeal

(b) applicants being poor villagers and shortage of

funds and (c) other claimants / applicants of the same

village Naroli took time in taking a decision whether

to challenge the judgment and award or not.

13. When a specific question was put to learned

advocate for the applicants whether other claimants of

same group have preferred any first appeals or not,

there was no specific reply given by him. Second cause

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/3378/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025

undefined

of weak financial status has resulted into time in

taking a decision to file appeals. One of the

explanations assigned for delay is that the land owners

of village Ajavada have received a compensation @

Rs.41/- per square meter and the claimants who are

from village Naroli have been awarded compensation

@ Rs.20.16 per square meter by learned Reference

Court.

14. A reason of Covid 19 has also been tried to

be advanced by the claimants for non-filing of appeal

within a prescribed period of limitation. It appears

from application that In 2023-24, the claimants after

selling agricultural products received the amount which

was utilized for preferring the appeals. Claimants also

took financial assistance from the friends to incur

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/3378/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025

undefined

expenses to file the appeals.

15. The contention of having shortage of funds is

not a ground which could be termed as a sufficient

cause in the present case for the reason that the

compensation was received by applicants in the year

2018, however, instead of assailing the impugned

judgment and award, the applicants expended the

amount of compensation for other causes. If the

applicants were truly aggrieved and dissatisfied with

the impugned judgment and award, instead of

incurring expenses for some other causes, the priority

could have been given to file first appeals in the same

year in which the claimants received compensation.

The First Appeals could have been filed as indigent

persons.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/3378/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025

undefined

16. The contention that there were differences of

opinion amongst the claimants whether to file appeal

challenging the judgment and award is by no stretch of

imagination be termed as `sufficient cause'. What is

material is the decision has to be taken by the

claimants themselves whether to challenge the

impugned judgment and award. The decision of

challenging the impugned judgment and award cannot

be dependent upon the decisions to be taken by other

claimants / applicants.

17. From the submissions canvassed by the

learned advocate for the applicants as well as the

averments made in the application, it appears that the

applicants have remained negligent and the applicants

are fence-sitters just waiting for other claimants to

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/3378/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025

undefined

succeed in the first appeals. The contention that in a

nearby village, the land owners received compensation

to the tune of Rs.41/- per square meter and, therefore,

the applicants found necessary to challenge the

impugned judgment and award is improper. This issue

is no more res integra in the decision of Pathapati

Subba Reddy (Died) by Lrs and others (Supra) , wherein

the Hon'ble Apex Court while discussing the issue of

Limitation, has observed in Paragraph No.16 as under:

"16. Generally, the courts have adopted a very liberal approach in construing the phrase 'sufficient cause' used in Section 5 of (the Limitation Act in order to condone the delay to enable the courts to do substantial justice and to apply law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice. In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Ors. vs. Katiji and Ors.2, this Court in advocating the liberal approach in condoning the delay for 'sufficient cause' held that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late; it is not necessary to explain every day's delay in filing the appeal; and since sometimes refusal to condone delay may result in throwing out a meritorious matter, it is necessary in the interest of justice that cause of substantial justice should be allowed to prevail upon technical considerations and if the delay is not

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/3378/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025

undefined

deliberate, it ought to be condoned. Notwithstanding the above, howsoever, liberal approach is adopted in condoning the delay, existence of 'sufficient cause' for not filing the appeal in time, is a condition precedent for exercising the discretionary power to condone the delay. The phrases 'liberal approach', oriented approach' and cause for the advancement of 'substantial justice' cannot be employed to defeat the law of limitation so as to allow stale matters or as a matter of fact dead matters to be revived and re-opened by taking aid of Section 5 of the Limitation Act."

18. In the decision of Pathapati Subba Reddy

(Died) by Lrs and others (Supra), Hon'ble Apex Court

referred decisions in the case of Ramlal, Motilal and

Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfields Limited, Maqbul Ahmad and

others v. Onkar Pratap Narain Singh and others, Brijesh

Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others, Lanka

Venkateswarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others,

State of Jharkhand v. Ashok Kumar Chokhani and

Baswaraj and another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer.

19. In the case of Baswaraj and another (Supra),

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/3378/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025

undefined

which has been referred by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

paragraph No.23, a law has been laid down that

expression `sufficient cause' as occurred in Section 5 of

Limitation Act cannot be liberally interpreted if

negligence, inaction or lack of bonafide is writ large.

20. In paragraph No.26 of the decision in the

case of Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by Lrs and others

(Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has interpreted what is

sufficient cause in condoning delay.

"26. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that:

(i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself;

(ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time;

(iii) The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally;

(iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/3378/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025

undefined

defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act;

(v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence;

(vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal;

(vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and

(viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision. "

21. Clause No.(vi) of Paragraph No.26 lays down

down a law that merely some persons obtained relief

in similar matters, it does not mean that others are

also entitled to the same benefit, if the Court is not

satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing

the appeals.

22. In paragraph 30, the Hon'ble Apex Court

observed as under:

"30. The aforesaid decisions would not cut any ice as the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/3378/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025

undefined

imposition of conditions is not warranted when sufficient cause has not been shown for condoning the delay. Secondly,delay is not liable to be condoned merely because some persons have been granted relief on the facts of their own case. Condonation of delay in such circumstances is in violation of the legislative intent and express provision of the statute. Condoning the delay merely for the reason that the claimants have been deprived of the interest for the delay, without holding that they had made out a case for condoning the delay, is not a correct approach, particularly when both the above decisions have been rendered in ignorance of the earlier pronouncement in the case of Basawaraj (supra).

23. The contention of learned advocate for the

applicants that the applicants can be saddled with a

cost of waiving of interest on the enhanced amount, in

paragraph No.31, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed

as under :

"31. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submitted, on the basis of additional documents, that in connection with the land acquisition in some other Special Leave Petitions, delay was condoned by taking a lenient view and compensation was enhanced with the rider that the claimants shall not be entitled for statutory benefits for the period of delay in approaching this Court or the High Court. The said orders do not clearly spell out the facts and reasons explaining the delay in filing the appeal(s), but the fact remains that the delay was condoned by taking too liberal an approach and putting conditions which have not been approved by this Court itself. In the absence of clear facts justifying condonation of delay in the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/3378/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025

undefined

referred cases, vis-à-vis the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that the reasons for condoning the delay are identical or similar. Therefore, we are unable to exercise our discretionary power of condoning the delay in filing the appeal on parity with the above order(s)."

24. In the present case, it appears from the

application itself that in the year 2018, claimants have

received an amount of compensation, however, did not

challenge the impugned judgment and award would

certainly mean that the claimants have accepted the

decision of the learned Reference Court and after a

period of almost 7 years, an application for obtaining

certified copy was made. Such conduct on the part of

the applicants raises a serious doubt and this Court

would not lean towards the applicants by taking a

lenient view of condoning the delay.

25. The decision which has been relied upon by