Back
2022 Supreme(Guj) 1044
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Sonia Gokani, Nisha M. Thakore, JJ.
Special Land Acquisition Officer - Applicant
Versus
Navinbhai Ravjibhai Patel – Respondent
R/Civil Application No. 2644 of 2020 In R/First Appeal No. 4042 of 2022
Decided On : 10-10-2022
For the Applicant : Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, AGP
For the Respondent: Mr. Pratik R. Patel, Mr. Ratnesh K. Shah.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for sufficient cause to explain delay, the importance of diligence in prosecuting the matter, and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the delay.
Headnote:
Delay Condonation - Land Acquisition - Circular dated 26.6.2013, Rafiq and another vs. Munshilal, N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Kirshnamurthy, Balwant Singh vs. Jagdish Singh, Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sridevi - The court discussed the delay condonation in the context of the circular dated 26.6.2013 and referred to various legal provisions and case laws including Rafiq and another vs. Munshilal, N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Kirshnamurthy, Balwant Singh vs. Jagdish Singh, Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sridevi. The court emphasized the need for sufficient cause to explain delay and highlighted the importance of diligence in prosecuting the matter. It also considered the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the delay and imposed costs for condonation of delay.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought condonation of delay of 792 days in filing an appeal against the judgment and award passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar in Land Acquisition cases. The delay was attributed to administrative processes and lack of negligence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was negligence and lack of attempts made by the applicant to prefer an appeal, and emphasized the need for diligence in prosecuting the matter. It also considered the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the delay and imposed costs for condonation of delay.
Issues: The issues revolved around the procedural delay in filing an appeal, negligence, and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for sufficient cause to explain delay, highlighted the importance of diligence in prosecuting the matter, and considered the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the delay. It also imposed costs for condonation of delay.
Final Decision: The application for condonation of delay was allowed with costs imposed on the applicant, and the First Appeal was scheduled for final hearing on 11.10.2022.
ORDER :
(Sonia Gokani, J.)
1. Applicant is the original appellant who is aggrieved by the judgement and award dated 21st September 2017 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar in L.A.R No. 104 of 2011 to L.A.R. No. 123 of 2011 and L.A.R No. 79 of 2013 to L.A.R. No. 82 of 2013.
2. Delay of 792 days is sought to be condoned explained by the applicant state that after pronouncement of judgment and award dated 21st September, 2017, learned Government Pleader gave his opinion vide letter dated 13th October, 2017 for filing an appeal against the impugned judgment and award.
3. It is further explained that on 2nd January, 2018, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Gandhinagar declared that he should approach the Revenue Department for approval to file an appeal against the impugned judgment and award.
4. On 17th January, 2018, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Gandhinagar returned the proposal to AUDA directing to approach through its Administrative Department to the Revenue Department for approval.
5. AUDA, vide its letter dated 22nd March, 2018, requested the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department to give adequate direction to the Special Land Acquisition Officer for filing an appeal. On 23rd May, 2018, information was given to the District Collector to send a request as per Government Circular dated 26.6.2013.
6. AUDA has again wrote a letter to the District Collector, Gandhinagar on 13.6.2018 to forward its opinion to the Revenue Department as per directions stated in its letter dated 23.5.2018 for filing an appeal.
7. On 26th June, 2013, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Gandhinagar, by letter dated 13th July, 2018, as per the circular dated 26.6.2013 of Legal Department, gave his opinion to file an appeal against the impugned judgment and award.
8. AUDA on 4th August, 2018 informed the Urban Department and Urban Housing Department, Gandhinagar to give its opinion.
9. The Legal Department by its communication dated 11.12.2018 informed the Office of the Government Pleader, High Court of Gujarat regarding its decision to file an appeal against the impugned judgment and award.
10. The Urban Development and Urban Housing Department sent a letter to the Office of the Government Pleader, High Court of Gujarat to undertake necessary action to file an appeal against the impugned judgment and award.
11. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar, vide order dated 19th April, 2019, added six claimants in the original judgment and award. Yet, another application was moved for impleading the names of legal heirs in Land Reference Case No. 123 of 2011. Certified copy of the order passed on 19th April, 2019 was received in July, 2019 in Land Reference Case No. 81 of 2013 .
12. According to the applicant, delay is a procedural delay and there is no negligence and/or inaction on the part of any of the department.
13. Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, learned AGP for the applicant-State and Mr. Ratnesh K.Shah, learned advocate for the respondent No.1 has drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that this is a part of group matters, which has been allowed by the co.ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.2.2021 in Civil Application Nos. 2634 of 2020 in First Appeal No. 5652 of 2020 and allied matters (Coram :Hon’ble Mr. R.M.Chhaya & Hon’ble Mr. R.P.Dholaria, JJ) as there was no resistance to this delay being condoned, request is made that the Civil Application is allowed.
14. Mr. Ratnesh Shah, learned advocate for the respondent No.1 has strongly resisted the delay caused during the month of July to December to urge that the same may not be condoned. He has also submitted that delay if is condoned, it may vitally affect the rights of the parties. He has relied upon the decision of this Court rendered in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Kasiben Ratanjibhai Gamit reported in MANU/GJ/0147/2021, this Court has denied the request on the ground of insufficient explanation.
15. So far as delay of 1569 days in the above matter is concerned,
