Gujarat High Court
Devraj Amrutlal vs State Of Gujarat on 17 December, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4106/2024 ORDER DATED: 17/12/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4106 of
2024
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 12821 of 2024
==========================================================
DEVRAJ AMRUTLAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR N R DESAI(6504) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MANOHAR RAHEVAR AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 17/12/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. NR Desai, learned advocate on record for the
applicant and Mr. Manohar Rahevar, learned Assistant Government
Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent – State.
2. The present application is filed at the instance of the original
claimant seeking condonation of delay of 1949 days caused in
preferring the proposed captioned appeal under section 54 of the
Land Acquisition Act whereby they intend to challenge the impugned
judgment and award passed under section 18 of the Act fixing the
amount of compensation on lower side.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant has referred to the
averments made in the application and has submitted that the delay is
not attributable to any negligence on the part of the present
applicant. It is further submitted that the Reference Court in the
process of passing the award has committed arithmetical and
Page 1 of 5
Uploaded by Radhika Srinivasan(HCD0042) on Sat Dec 21 2024 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 23 21:23:46 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4106/2024 ORDER DATED: 17/12/2024
undefined
computational errors, which has drastically reduced the compensation
payable to the claimants. It is further alleged that the certified copy of
the impugned judgment dated 30.09.2016 was applied on 27.02.2020,
which is received by the applicant on 01.12.2020. It is further
submitted that the common award dated 30.09.2016, some of the
claimants preferred first appeals being First Appeals Nos. 296 of 2018,
298 of 2018 and 300 of 2018, 302 of 2018 to 305 of 2018 before this
Court. The applicants being similarly situated as their lands being
acquired under the same notification and the amount of
compensation being determined on the lower side under the same
award, had cause to approach this court by way of aforesaid captioned
appeals. It is also submitted that at relevant stage, the applicants
being illiterate and not conversant with the intricacies of the law and
being otherwise guided by the co-villagers had chose not to file an
appeal because of want of sufficient court fees and professional fees.
However, considering the fact that the Land Acquisition Act itself is a
benevolent legislation whereby the object of the Act is welfare of the
people and intends to provide just and proper compensation of the
acquired land, the prayer was made to condone the delay and to take
liberal approach.
3.1 The reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in this regard. The attention of this Court was invited
to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhiraj Singh
v. State of Haryana (2014) 14 SCC 127 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 236 as well
as in the case of Imrat Lal v. Land Acquisition Collector & Ors. (2014)
15 SCC 127 whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court had condoned huge
delay and has observed that the courts are expected to take liberal
approach in matters pertaining to Land Acquisition Act. The attention
of this court was also invited to the fact that in the aforesaid matters
Page 2 of 5
Uploaded by Radhika Srinivasan(HCD0042) on Sat Dec 21 2024 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 23 21:23:46 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4106/2024 ORDER DATED: 17/12/2024
undefined
the ground of parity on grant of compensation was the core issue
which was considered while condoning the delay. Lastly, learned
advocate has also placed reliance upon the Three Judges Bench
Judgment in the case of Ningappa Thotappa Angadi Dead Thr. LRs.
V/s Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another, reported in
(2020)19 SCC 599.
4. On the other hand, learned AGP for the respondent – State has
vehemently objected to the aforesaid submissions. Learned Assistant
Government Pleader has submitted that merely because in cognate
matters this court has enhanced the amount of compensation, the
same cannot be a ground for considering the huge number of delay.
The applicant was aware about the impugned judgment and award
and has remained fence sitter for these years who had chose not to
challenge the impugned judgment and order at an advanced stage.
The attention of this court was invited to the judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Pathupati Subba Reddy (Died) by L.Rs.
& Ors. v. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) 2024 INSC 286 where the
Court following the earlier judgment in the case of Basawaraj and
Another V/s Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2011) 4 SCC
316 has held that the term ‘sufficient cause’ means an adequate and
enough reasons which prevented the applicant to approach the court
within stipulated period of limitation and in the case where the party
is found to be negligent or for want of bonafied or has not acted
diligently or remained inactive, the same cannot be a justified ground
to condone the delay. It was also held that in absence of any sufficient
cause being made out, the courts are not justified in condoning the
delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. He has therefore
submitted that merely because the other affected land owners have
succeeded in receiving the enhanced compensation, the same would
Page 3 of 5
Uploaded by Radhika Srinivasan(HCD0042) on Sat Dec 21 2024 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 23 21:23:46 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4106/2024 ORDER DATED: 17/12/2024
undefined
not entitle the present applicant who had not approached this court
within a stipulated period of limitation by way of appeal. Even
otherwise, the merits of the case cannot be examined at the stage of
condonation of delay. He has therefore objected to grant of
condonation of delay, even by imposing condition of waiving interest.
5. Learned advocate the applicant – original claimant has referred
to the order dated 27.11.2024 passed by this court in Civil Application
(for Condonation of Delay) No.4956 of 2024 in First Appeal No.23002
of 2024 and has submitted that in similar group of matters arising out
of same group of L.A.R. No.1529 of 2003, has condoned same number
of days of delay by imposing condition that the claimants are not
entitled to claim interest for the delayed period by approaching this
court by way of First Appeal. He has therefore urged to condone the
delay with suitable conditions.
6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and applying the principles laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the various decisions as relied upon by the
learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it can be
noticed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court right from the decision in the
case of Dhiraj Singh (supra) and in the case of Imrat Lal (supra) which
has later been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ningappa Thotappa Angadi (supra) which is Three Judges Bench
Judgment has consistently opined that where the parties are
identically situated and in one set of appeals, they are found to be
entitled to enhanced amount of compensation then their can be no
reason to give a different treatment to the applicants who
approached belatedly. So far as the reliance placed by the learned
Assistant Government Pleader on the Judgment of the Hon’ble
Page 4 of 5
Uploaded by Radhika Srinivasan(HCD0042) on Sat Dec 21 2024 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 23 21:23:46 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4106/2024 ORDER DATED: 17/12/2024
undefined
Supreme Court in the case of Ningappa Thotappa Angadi (supra)
does not refer to the Three Judges Bench Judgment as relied upon by
the learned advocate for the applicant. At the same time, the courts
have opined that the equity can be balanced by denying interest for
the period for which they did not approached this court. The broad
principle which appealed to the Hon’ble Supreme Court is that the
substantive rights of the affected land owners should not be allowed
to be defeated on the technical grounds of taking hyper technical
view of self-imposed limitations. The court has therefore held that in
the matter of compensation for land acquisition, the approach of the
court has to be pragmatic and not pandemic.
7. Applying the aforesaid principles in the facts of the case where
the similarly situated land owners have successfully established their
entitlement to the enhanced amount of compensation, the present
applicants being similarly situated cannot be deprived of their right to
seek enhanced amount of compensation on the technical ground of
delay. Hence the equities in the facts of the case is balanced by
directing the claimants to be not entitled to the interest on enhanced
amount of compensation, if any, for the interregnum period of delay
i.e. from the date of the impugned judgment and award till the date of
the filing of the present appeal.
8. With these conditions, the present application seeking
condonation of delay of 1949 days caused in preferring the captioned
appeal is hereby condoned. Civil Application stands allowed to the
aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute.
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
Radhika
Page 5 of 5
Uploaded by Radhika Srinivasan(HCD0042) on Sat Dec 21 2024 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 23 21:23:46 IST 2024