Shimbhiben Arjanbhai vs State Of Gujarat

A.G.Uraizee, J

Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Urmila Desai, learned AGP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents.

Heard Mr. Nitin M. Amin, learned advocate for the applicants and Ms. Desai, learned AGP for the respondents.

This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delay of 2068 days which has occurred in preferring First Appeal to assail

impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court.

Mr. Amin, learned advocate for the applicants submit that the delay has occurred in preferring appeal for the reasons mentioned in paragraph No.3

of the application. It is his further submission that other land owners had approached this Court by preferring First Appeal No. 3560 of 2017 and

cognate appeals which had emanated from the selfsame award. He submits that the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 9.1.2018 has

remanded the matters to the Reference Court for fresh award by carrying out certain correction of calculation of the compensation payable to the

land owners. He therefore, urges that the delay may be condoned.

Ms. Desai, learned AGP submits that the delay is very huge delay. According to her submission, the delay is not properly and sufficiently explained

in paragraph No.3 of the application. She submits that the concept of liberal approach in condoning delay does not mean that the Court should condone

huge delay unconditionally. She therefore, urges that while condoning delay, the applicants may be precluded from getting the interest for the period of

delay.

I have considered rival submissions. It is proved that there is huge delay in preferring first appeal.

At this stage, it is relevant to take into account the observations made by Supreme Court in paragraph Nos. 10 to 12 in case of K. Subbarayudu vs.

Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) reported in 2017 (12) SCC 840), which read as under:-

“10. Before the High Court, the appellants relied upon Yellasiri Sarojanamma’s case, in L.A.S.S. No.46 of 2015, in which the High Court

condoned the delay of 3386 days in filing the land acquisition appeal suit subject to the condition that in the event, the appellant/claimant thereon

succeed in appeal, she is not entitled to any interest in respect of the period of delay. The appellants contended that the same approach ought to have

been adopted in the case of appellants also. Insofar as, the reliance placed upon by the claimants in L.A.S.S. No.46/2015, the High Court seems to

have brushed aside the contention of the appellants on the puerile ground that the relevant fact situation in the said case is not forthcoming in the said

order. In our view, the High Court was not right in adopting a different yardstick in the case of the appellants in not condoning the delay.

The term “sufficient causeâ€​ is to receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, when no negligence, inaction or want of bona

fide is attributable to the appellants, the Court should adopt a justice-oriented approach in condoning the delay. In State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO and

Others (2005) 3 SCC 752: 2005 (4) JT 10, it was held as under:-

“Section 5 is to be construed liberally so as to do substantial justice to the parties. The provision contemplates that the court has to go into the

position of the person concerned and to find out if the delay can be said to have been resulted from the cause which he had adduced and whether the

cause recorded in the peculiar circumstances of the case is sufficientâ€​.

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

same need not be used as a ground to depict them with negligence or want of bona fide. In case of acquisition of lands of agriculturists, the courts

ought to adopt a pragmatic approach to award just and reasonable compensation and not pedantic in their approach. In Dhiraj Singh (D) Thr. Lrs. Etc.

Etc. v. Haryana State and Ors. Etc. Etc. 2014 (9) SCALE 441, it was held as under:-

“15. Equities can be balanced by denying the appellants’ interest for the period for which they did not approach the Court. The substantive

rights of the appellants should not be allowed to be defeated on technical grounds by taking hyper technical view of self-imposed limitations. In the

matter of compensation for land acquisition, we are of the view that approach of the Court has to be pragmatic and not pedantic.â€​

Considering the overall facts and the fact that the cognate appeals have been decided by the Division Bench of this Court and the matters were

remitted to the Reference Court for fresh consideration to carry out correction in the computation of the compensation amount payable to the land

owners, I am of the view that discretion of condoning delay is required to be exercised in favour of the applicants subject to payment of cost.

In view the above, the present civil application succeeds and is hereby allowed. The delay of 2068 days occurred in preferring first appeal to assail

the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court is hereby condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/-. The applicants are directed to

deposit a sum of Rs.1,000/- in the District Legal Aid Committee, Junagadh on or before 15. 3.2022.

The application stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute.