Rajabhai Govindbhai Geda Since Deceased Through Legal Heirs vs State Of Gujarat

Nikhil S. Kariel, J

Heard learned Advocate Mr. Nitin Amin on behalf of the applicant and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Krushita Dave on behalf of the respondent-State.

Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

By way of this application, the applicant prays for condoning delay of 496 days which has occurred in preferring First Appeal against the impugned judgment and award passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vanthali dated 29.08.2018 in Land Reference Case Nos. 187 of 2017 and 177 of 2017.

Learned Advocate Mr.Amin appearing on behalf of the applicants would submit that the cause for delay in preferring the appeals is the fact that while the impugned judgement and award had been passed on 29.8.2018, it is only approximately after a period of four years i.e. in the month of January/February 2022 that the applicants received compensation as per the impugned judgement. Learned Advocate Mr.Amin would further submit that as a matter of fact, the lands of the present applicants had been compulsorily acquired somewhere in the year 2009 and whereas for around 13 years, the applicants were bereft of lands and bereft of any means of livelihood. It is only after the applicants received the compensation awarded, the applicants could pay the necessary Court fee for preferring the appeal.

These applications have been vehemently opposed by the learned AGP Ms. Krushita Dave, who would submit that the delay of 496 days has not been sufficiently explained and whereas under such circumstances, the applications may not be considered by this Court.

Having regard to such submissions, learned Advocate Mr.Amin would request this Court to condone the delay of 496 days in preferring the appeals. Learned Advocate Mr.Amin, in support of his submissions, would rely upon the observations of a learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Mansurbhai Mulubhai Vs. (State of Gujarat) Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation (Irrigation) Officer in Civil Application No.1239 of 2021 in F/First Appeal No.15299 of 2021. Learned Advocate Mr.Amin would further rely upon the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Collector, Land Acquisition , Anantnag and Anr. Vs. Mst. Katji and Ors., reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353 as well as the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of S. Ganeshraju (D) Through LRs and Anr. Vs. Narasamma (D) Through LRs and Ors., reported in 2012 (4) Scale 152. Learned Advocate would submit that in the decision of this Court, relied upon i.e. in Civil Application No.1239 of 2021, a learned Coordinate Bench had inter alia taken the view that the delay caused in preferring appeal, more particularly since the land owner could not gather funds for preferring appeal on account of late payment of compensation, was a good ground for condoning the delay.

Learned Advocate Mr.Amin would also rely upon the decision of a learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Girishkumar Bhikhubhai Hirpara Vs. State of Gujarat in Civil Application No.3223 of 2022 in F/First Appeal No.24316 of 2022 dated 7.12.2022. Since it appears that the learned Coordinate Bench in decision of Girishkumar, was dealing with a similar issue, this Court deems it appropriate to refer to and rely upon the observations of the learned Coordinate Bench. Paragraphs No.6, 7, and 8 of the said decision being relevant for the present purpose are quoted herein below for benefit:-

“6. Pertinently, it is not in dispute that the possession of the land of the applicants was taken before 10 years and thereafter, the applicants have been without land and also the compensation. It is also not in dispute that reference case came to be decided by the judgment dated 03.10.2018; followed by deposit of the amount of compensation; further followed by the applications by the applicants seeking disbursement. It is not in dispute that the application for disbursement has been allowed recently and it is only after the applicant could manage the funds that the appeal has been filed. It is nobody’s case that applicant has not taken any steps and after long years has woken up from the slumber, that the appeals have been filed.

From the averments made in the application, it is clear that the applicant, has been vigilant enough to pursue the remedy and therefore the present appeal. This Court, in the case of Mansurbhai Mulubhai v. (State of Gujarat) Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation (Irrigation) Officer (supra) has noted that the person, who has lost the land and did not have the money, in absence of the payment of the compensation is a good reason and makes out a bonafide ground which prevented the applicants from preferring the appeals. It has also been held that poor farmers who have lost the land cannot be expected to be able to immediately arrange the funds for incurring the expenses towards the litigation. It also cannot be said that the person, who has lost the land would not take steps for the purpose of the compensation more particularly, the land, which have been acquired is the source of livelihood.

The Apex Court, in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v. Mst. Katiji and others (supra) has held and observed that liberal approach be adopted while condoning the delay. Yet in another decision in the case of S. Ganeshraju (D) Thr. L.Rs. and another v. Narasamma (D) Thr. L.Rs. and others (supra) the said principle has been reiterated. It has been held and observed that the expression “sufficient cause” is to be given a liberal interpretation so as to advance substantial justice. Exception is that unless the respondents are able to show malafide in not approaching the Court within limitation, generally, as a normal rule, the delay should be condoned.”

Having regard to the observations and the law laid down by the learned Coordinate Bench, more particularly referring to and relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as a learned Coordinate Bench, and further having regard to the reasons set out by the applicants in the applications as well as the oral submissions made by the learned Advocate Mr.Amin, in the considered opinion of this Court, sufficient cause is shown, explaining the delay of 496 days, which has occurred in preferring the appeals against the award passed by the learned Reference Court.

Having regard to the same, the delay is condoned. The present civil applications are allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

Registry to list First Appeals on 21.03.2023.