Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1130 (GUJ)

Nathabhai Khimabhai v. State Of Gujarat

2022-09-29

NISHA M.THAKORE, SONIA GOKANI

body2022
ORDER : SONIA GOKANI, J. 1. Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent – State. 2. The group of applicants, who are before this Court seeking to condone the delay of 2488 and 2458 days respectively, challenging the judgment and order dated 21.02.2013 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge in Land Reference Cases at Junagadh. 3. It emerges from the record that the possession of the lands of the applicants had been taken over by the State in the year 2000. Additional compensation had been given at the rate of Rs.32.40 per square meters for irrigated land and Rs.25.87 per square meters for Jirayat land and Rs.11.14 per square meters for non-used/ uncultivated land. Additional compensation was given at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of 30 months and solatium at the rate of 30% on the said amount. This has aggrieved the applicants, whose main grievance is that the sale instances of the very village, whereby the market value of the land had been fixed at Rs.75 has not been taken into consideration by the Reference Court. 3.1. It is further their say that they were without the land and any compensation for the period of nearly 10 years and therefore, could not have sufficient fund to file appeals. Hence, the request is made to condone the delay of 2488 and 2458 days relying on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of K. Subbarayadu and others vs. Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), reported in 2017 12 SCC 840 . It was an appeal under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before the Apex Court where the delay of 3671 days has been condoned by the Apex Court by striking the balance that for the delay which has been caused, no interest would be chargeable. 4. This Court has heard the learned advocate, Mr.Nitin Amin appearing for the applicants and learned Assistant Government Pleader, Ms. Dhwani Tripathi for respondent- State. 5. Learned advocate, Mr.Nitin Amin has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in case of K. Subbarayadu and others (supra) and has urged that the practical difficulty of the appellants needs to be born in mind. Dhwani Tripathi for respondent- State. 5. Learned advocate, Mr.Nitin Amin has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in case of K. Subbarayadu and others (supra) and has urged that the practical difficulty of the appellants needs to be born in mind. He has further urged that this Court in Civil Application No.01 of 2019 in First Appeal No.8076 of 2019 has also condoned the huge delay in bringing the heirs of the Land Reference Court on record. He has further pointed out that sufficient cause as mentioned in the provision as per the decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of S.Ganeshraju (D) Thr. L.Rs.& Another vs. Narasamma (D) Thr. L.Rs. & others,reported in 2012 (4) Scale 152 shall need to be given a liberal meaning. There are fair chances to succeed in the appeal and the plight of the agriculturist shall be considered sympathetically. He has urged that he has already paid the price for his not having approached this Court well within time, as per the said decision of the Apex Court where he may not claim the interest for the delayed period. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, Ms. Dhwani Tripathi has strongly objected to this on the ground that the delay is huge and there is no sufficient explanation. She has further urged that the phrases used are standard and do not indicate anything in particulars with regard to the conditions of the applicants, the Court may not condone the delay when delay of each day needs to be explained by the party. 7. Having heard learned advocates on both the sides and also having taken into consideration the explanation, this Court noticed that the judgment and order of the Reference Court dated 21.02.2013 where of course there is a some rise in the amount of compensation. The applicants are before this Court indicating that for the very village the sale instances of Rs.75 per square meters for irrigated land. It is also matter of record that the land has been acquired in the year 2000 and the applicants being the agriculturist would have no other means to sustain themselves. In that circumstances, they have pleaded their inability to pay the Court fees in each case. 8. It is also matter of record that the land has been acquired in the year 2000 and the applicants being the agriculturist would have no other means to sustain themselves. In that circumstances, they have pleaded their inability to pay the Court fees in each case. 8. Being alive to the decision of the Apex Court and also in case of State of Nagaland vs. Lipok AO and others, reported in 2005 3 SCC 752 which says that Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall have to be liberally construed 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 sufficient. 9. The Apex Court in case of K. Subbarayadu and others (supra) was also dealing with Land Acquisition Cases where it held that the acquisition of the land the lifeline of the agriculturist is lost. There may be omissions on the part of the claimants to adopt extra vigilance; but same need not be used as a ground to depict them as not having bona-fide or to treat the same as a negligent act. The Court ought to adopt a pragmatic approach so far as the Land Acquisition matters are concerned, for awarding just and reasonable compensation. 10. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of Dhiraj Singh (D) Thr. Lrs. vs. Haryana State and Ors, reported in 2014 9 Scale 441 the Apex Court struck the balance by denying the appellants' interest for the period for which they did not approach the Court. Apt would be to reproduce the findings and observations of the Apex Court in this regard: “12. In fact, in a matter arising out of the same notification, in Civil Appeal Nos.617-619 of 2012, this Court had rendered a judgment dated 17.1.2012 condoning the delay of 4644 days and enhancing the compensation to Rs.200/- per square yard. A perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents makes it clear that the rate of Rs.200/- per sq. yard fixed in Horam's case (LPA No.920 of 1994) has been upheld by this Court by dismissing the special leave petition against the said judgment. A perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents makes it clear that the rate of Rs.200/- per sq. yard fixed in Horam's case (LPA No.920 of 1994) has been upheld by this Court by dismissing the special leave petition against the said judgment. A perusal of the said order makes it clear that it relied upon dismissal orders passed in various other special leave petitions whereby the aforesaid rate had been upheld. 13. Thus, in almost all cases, the rate of Rs.200/- per sq. yard has been applied by the High Court and this Court. 14. The appellants are identically situated and there is no reason to meet out a different trcatment to them. We also note that, while in these cases, the High Court had refused to condone the delay and dismissed the LPAs of the appellants, other LPAs were allowed by the High Court itself by condoning the delay of the same magnitude in the same circumstances.” 11. This Court also in Civil Application No.01 of 2019 in First Appeal No.8076 of 2019 relying of the decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of Banwari Lal vs. Balbir Singh, reported in 2016 (1) SCC 607 and considering the peculiar facts and circumstances allowed the application by condoning the delay of 4175 days in bringing the heirs on the record. 12. As can be noted from the version given by the applicants that they are agriculturist, who have lost their land in the year 2000 and their sale instance of the very village also has provided them the cause to approach this Court. The delay is also well explained of their not having the sufficient means. It is quite understandable that the persons who have lost their only means of bread and butter if needs to adduce the Court fees which in an individual case of Rs.75,000/-, it is extremely difficult for them to make an arrangement till the amount given under the award is available to them. Delay having been sufficiently explained, the Court is of the opinion that this is the fit case for permitting the condonation of delay. 13. Delay having been sufficiently explained, the Court is of the opinion that this is the fit case for permitting the condonation of delay. 13. Resultantly, these applications are allowed, delay of 2488 and 2458 days is condoned with a specific rider and direction that for the entire amount of delay which has been caused in filing the First Appeals, no interest shall be claimed by the petitioners as agreed to oral submissions of the learned advocate, Mr.Nitim Amin and also has been reflected in the decision of the Apex Court in case of Dhiraj Singh (D) Thr. Lrs.(supra) reiterated in case of K. Subbarayadu and others (supra). 14. Rule is made absolute accordingly. First Appeals be numbered and listed for admission in seriatim.