ORAL ORDER

1. Mr. Nitin Amin, learned Advocate submitted that by this application, the applicants have prayed for condoning the delay of

2454 days occurred in filing the captioned appeal.

2. Mr. Nitin Amin, learned Advocate, at the outset has placed on record the order dated 19.9.2022 passed in Civil Application no.2190 of 2022 in F/First Appeal no.5744 of 2022 so also the order dated 16.11.2022 passed in Civil Application no.2963 of 2022 in F/First Appeal no.5757 of 2022. It is urged that the subject matter of challenge in the present proceedings, are arising out of the same acquisition which was for the Sabli Irrigation Scheme of village Khorasa, Taluka Vanthali, District Junagadh. It is next submitted that the delay caused has been condoned with a rider that the claimants shall not claim the interest for the interregnum period. It is urged that similar order be passed so far as the present civil application is concerned.

3. Issue Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Ashutosh Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service notice of rule on behalf of the respondents.

4. Mr. Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader has urged that if the interest aspect is taken care of, appropriate order be passed.

5. The applicants have stated that the applicants have not received just compensation, however, there is evidence to prove that the applicant can get higher compensation for the acquired lands. Therefore, the applicants, have a strong case on merits and therefore, the delay be condoned. It is the case of the applicants that neither there is any fault on the part of the applicants nor there is culpable negligence in not preferring the application within the period of limitation. It is stated that the circumstances were beyond the control which, has dissuaded the applicants in preferring the appeal challenging the judgment dated 21.02.2013. It is urged that if the delay is not condoned, the applicants would be subjected to great prejudice and if the delay is condoned no prejudice shall be caused to the respondents herein.

6. Apt would be, the judgment in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another vs. Mst. Katiji and others reported in AIR (1987) SC 135 wherein the Apex Court has held and observed that while condoning the delay, liberal approach be adopted. In yet another decision of the Apex Court in the case of S. Ganesharaju (D) Thr. L. Rs. & another vs. Narasamma (D) Thr. L. Rs. & Others reported in (2012) 4 SCALE 152, it has been held and observed that the expression “sufficient cause” has to be given a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. It is held that unless the respondents are able to show any malafide on the part of the applicants in not approaching the Court within limitation, generally as a normal rule delay should be condoned.

7. Similarly in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dhiraj Singh (Dead) Through Legal Representative and Others v. State of Haryana and Others reported in (2014) 14 SCC 127, the Apex Court, in paragraph 11, has held and observed that in the matter of land acquisition where land of peasants is acquired, a different approach has to be taken. The person should not be deprived of the reasonable compensation for their lands. Further more, in paragraph 15, it has been held and observed that 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. The Apex Court, has also held and observed that 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. Paragraphs 11, 15 and 16, read thus:

“11. In the matter of land acquisition where land of peasants is acquired, a different approach has to be taken. These persons should not be deprived of the reasonable compensati