Gujarat High Court
Mali Mafaji Ratnaji vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 30 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1787/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1787 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1156 of 2022
==========================================================
MALI MAFAJI RATNAJI
Versus
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KRUSHNAKANT D PATEL(10632) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR TEJAS P SATTA(3149) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR.BHAVESH DESAI AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
NILAY H PATEL(7856) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 30/09/2025
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 2214 days caused in filing
the First Appeal.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Tejas Satta for the
applicant, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the
respondent - State and learned advocate Mr.Nilay Patel
for respondent No.2.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant contended
that the judgment and decree dated 15.09.2015 and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1787/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
18.09.2015 respectively passed by the learned 3 rd
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Palanpur in Land
Acquisition Reference (LAR) Case No.293 of 2000 in
group LAR No.281 to 297 of 2000. Upon getting such
knowledge, applicant remained in contact with the
Advocate from November, 2015 till December, 2018.
The relevant papers were collected from the Advocate
of Reference Court in the month of January, 2018. Due
to personal difficulties, applicant could not establish
contact with the learned Advocate of this Hon'ble
Court till July, 2018. Subsequently, from November,
2018 till November 2019, applicant remained in regular
contact with the Advocate for taking appropriate steps
in challenging the impugned judgment and award. In
the meantime, in the month of September, 2016,
applicant received compensation which was deposited
by the acquiring body. Thereafter, certified copy of the
impugned judgment and award was applied for on 2 nd
December, 2019 and was delivered on 7 th December,
2019.
3.1 It is further contended that the applicant had
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1787/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
remained vigilant throughout in collecting the
necessary papers and contacting with the learned
advocate. When the applicant inquired about the status
of his First Appeal after March 2020, the concerned
Advocate informed him that the matter is not filed
because of non-payment of Court Fees. The applicant
being an illeterate villager having no knowledge about
the legal intricacies, was left remedy less. On receiving
the information that appeal is not filed and application
was presented on 07.01.2022. It is contended that
there is no negligent or inaction on the part of the
applicant. Therefore, justice oriented view may be
adopted considering the peculiar fact of the case that
the applicant remained under the impression that the
First Appeal has already been filed without Court fees
and also without certified copy.
3.2 It is further contended that applicant has
lost his valuable land in the acquisition proceedings.
The land of applicant situated at village Goda, Taluka:
Diodar, Dist.Banaskantha was acquired for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1787/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
construction of main canal of Narmada Project. The
compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer
as well as by the Reference Court is not just and
reasonable and claimant did not receive the
compenstion till September, 2016. It is further
submitted that the applicant is ready and willing to
forgo and waive interest for the delayed period on
enhanced compensation. Except above, no other
submissions are canvassed by the learned advocate for
the applicant.
4. Per contra, learned advocate for respondent
No.2 has placed on record an Affidavit-in-reply on
behalf of respondent No.2, which is taken on record.
4.1 Learnd advocate for respondent No.2 has
objected and contended that the delay application is
filed after a lapse of 6 years 3 months and 23 days,
and in the application, no reasonable explanation has
been mentioned by the applicants. Application is silent
with regard to the date of application for the certified
copy of the impugned order as well as the date, month
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1787/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
and year on which the applicants approached the
learned advocate. The reasons assigned in the
application are misleading and no leniency would be
shown to the applicants. The applicants are negligence
in not challenging the impugned award within the
prescribed period of limitation. Therefore, present
application is required to be dismissed. Except above,
no other submissions are made by learned advocate for
respondent No.2.
5. On the other hand, learned AGP has
submitted that the applicant has remained negligenct in
not challenging the impugned judgment and award
within the prescribed period of limitation. The
explanations and reasons assigned in the application
are vague and general. The certified copy was ready
and delivered on 07.12.2019 and the reasons assigned
in the application are not genuine. Therefore, present
application is required to be dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1787/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
6. I have considered the submissions canvassed
by learned advocates for the respective parties and
perused the application. Undisputed fact culled out
from the record that the land of the applicant is
situated at village Goda, Taluka: Diodar,
Dist.Banaskantha, was acquired by the acquiring body
for the purpose of construction of main Canal of
Narmada Project. Record reveals that Notification
under Section 4 of the Act was published on
30.04.1997 and notification under Section 6 of the Act
was published on 07.11.1997. The Land Acquisition
Officer awarded compensation at Rs.1.95 paisa for
irrigated land and Rs.1.30 paisa for non-irrigated land.
Being aggrieved with the impugned award, the
claimants preferred Reference Case under Section 18 of
the Act and claimed moe compensation. The Reference
Court by partly allowing the reference held that the
applicants were entitled to additonal compensation of
Rs.21.50/- paisa per square meter for the acquired
land.
It is not in dispute that the claimants have
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1787/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
lost their valuable land in the acquisition proceedings.
It also emerges from the record that after the
pronouncement of judgment and decree by learned
Reference Court, applicant remained vigilant by
contacting with the Advocate. Applicant remained
under the impression that the First Appeal has been
filed challenging the Award. However, it was only
after the year 2020, the applicant came to know, upon
inquiry, that the First Appeal had not been filed due
to non-payment of Court fees and non-supplied of the
certified copy. The applicant, being a poor villager
cannot expect to remain in contact with the Advocate
with regard to the procedural status of First Appeal.
7. Considering the averments made in the
application, applicant was under a bonafide impression
that the appeal is filed before this Court. However, as
a matter of fact, no such appeal was filed challenging
the impugned award. The reasons assigned in para 26
of the application is a ground which requires a lenient
and justice oriented view to be adopted by this Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1787/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
The land acquisition proceedings are benevolent
proceedings and it is to be seen by the Court that
adequate compensation has not awaded to the land
loosers, who have lost the valuable land and the
livelihood.
8. In the case of Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana
& Ors. Reported in (2025) SCC online SC 896, the Hon'ble
Apex Court while considering the delay in filing First
Appeal, taken into consideration the ground for delay.
The ground taken by the appellant was that the
documents had been given to the concerned person to
file an appeal against the order of Reference Court but
the same was not filed.
In the present case, the explanation given by
the applicant is almost similar explanation which was
given in the case of Suresh Kumar (supra). The primary
duty of the Court is to ascertain whether the party has
provided a sufficient cause for the delay. The Court
must verify the bona fides of the explanation given for
delay, granting or rejecting the application, is the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1787/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
discretion of the Court. Such discretion has to be
exercised considering the explanation advanced by
litigant. A circumstance, which is beyond the control
of a litigant in challenging, the impugned judgement is
considered to be a sufficient cause.
9. Considering the peculiar set of facts, I am of
the view that the delay is required to be condoned by
imposing a penalty to the extent that the claimant/s
shall not be entitled to interest for the delayed period
on enhanced compensation, if any, awarded by this
Court. Resultantly, this application is allowed. Delay is
condoned.
10. The application is allowed. Rule is made
absolute to the aforesaid extent.
11. This decision would not be applicable to
other sets of facts and would not set as a precedent.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
MANOJ
