Gujarat High Court
Girishkumar Bhikhubhai Hirpara vs State Of Gujarat on 7 December, 2022
Author: Sangeeta K. Vishen
Bench: Sangeeta K. Vishen
C/CA/3223/2022 ORDER DATED: 07/12/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3223 of 2022
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 24316 of 2022
==========================================================
GIRISHKUMAR BHIKHUBHAI HIRPARA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NITIN M AMIN(126) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SANJAY M AMIN(130) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP
MS TEJALBEN RAJPUT, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
Date : 07/12/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. Mr. Nitin M. Amin, learned advocate submitted that the present application, has been filed by the applicants seeking condonation of delay of 581 days caused in filing the captioned appeal whereby, the applicant has challenged the judgment and award dated 03.10.2018 passed by the Reference Court in Land Reference Case no.497 of 2006.
2. Issue Rule, returnable forthwith. Ms. Tejalben Rajput, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent no.1.
3. Mr Nitin M. Amin, learned advocate appearing for the applicants, submitted that the possession of the land was taken 10 years ago and thereafter, the applicants were without land which, was the only source of livelihood. Compensation was not paid for Page 1 of 5 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 02:10:43 IST 2022 C/CA/3223/2022 ORDER DATED: 07/12/2022 almost all these years and therefore, due to the financial constraint, no steps were taken. It is submitted that the judgment and award was passed in the year 2018 and the authorities, have thereafter deposited the amount of compensation. The applicants have applied for withdrawal of the amount of compensation and the disbursement was allowed recently.
3.1. It is submitted that therefore there was no fault on the part of the applicants in not preferring appeals in time and that the delay which has been caused is a bonafide inasmuch as, the monetary limitation prevented applicants from preferring appeals which, otherwise has been held to be a valid ground by this Court, while passing the order dated 30.7.2021 in the case of Mansurbhai Mulubhai v. (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. It is submitted that this Court, noted that when the claimant, has lost the land and if they are out of money, in absence of payment of compensation is a good reason and makes out a bonafide ground that prevented the applicant from preferring the appeal. This Court, also pointed out that the poor farmer who lost the land, cannot be expected to be able to immediately arrange the funds for litigation expenses. Also, no litigant, would while away the time for the sake of whiling away when he intends to agitate for his legal rights. It is therefore submitted that considering the explanation offered so also the opinion expressed by this Court in the order dated 30.7.2021 passed in civil application no.1239 of 2021, the application be allowed and the delay be condoned.
3.2. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v. Mst.
Page 2 of 5 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 02:10:43 IST 2022C/CA/3223/2022 ORDER DATED: 07/12/2022 Katiji and others reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353 so also the judgment in the case of S. Ganeshraju (D) Thr. L.Rs. and another v. Narasamma (D) Thr. L.Rs. and others reported in 2012 (4) Scale
152. It is well settled principle that expression "sufficient cause" is to be given liberal interpretation so as to advance substantial justice. It is therefore urged that the applications be allowed condoning the delay of 581 days in filing the appeals.
4. Ms. Tejalben Rajput, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the delay, is enormous and only on the limited ground of non-availability of compensation, the explanation offered cannot be accepted; however, it is urged that the claimant shall not claim interest for the delayed period.
5. Heard Mr Nitin M. Amin, learned advocate appearing for the applicant and Ms. Tejalben Rajput, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
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.
7. From the averments made in the application, it is clear that Page 3 of 5 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 02:10:43 IST 2022 C/CA/3223/2022 ORDER DATED: 07/12/2022 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.
8. 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.
9. In the present case, the applicant has been able to offer sufficient explanation in support of the delay of 581 days occurred in preferring the appeal inasmuch as the applicant was out of funds and therefore, no steps could be taken. The delay which has been Page 4 of 5 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 02:10:43 IST 2022 C/CA/3223/2022 ORDER DATED: 07/12/2022 caused is bonafide and not that the applicant has been buying away the time and not taking any steps.
10. Under the circumstances so also, the principles governing the aspect of condonation of delay, this Court is of the opinion that the same applies on all fours to the facts of the present case. The civil application succeeds and the delay of 581 days caused in filing the captioned appeal is condoned.
11. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.
(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) SINDHU NAIR Page 5 of 5 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 02:10:43 IST 2022