IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5136 of

2025 In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4119 of 2025 ==========================================================

DUDHIBEN D/O NATHABHAI MOVALIYA W/O GOPALBHAI CHIKHALIYA &

ORS.

Versus DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND PRANT OFFICER, SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR KRUSHNAKANT D PATEL(10632) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 MR TEJAS P SATTA(3149) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 MR.RAHUL DAVE, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER Date : 14/11/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Learned AGP Mr. Rahul Dave waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No.1.

2. Learned Advocate Mr. Tejas Satta submits that the applicants have been subjected to injustice by virtue of the judgment and decree rendered in the Land Acquisition Reference Case. Consequently, the applicants have preferred the present appeal before this Court, thereby challenging the legality and validity of the impugned order. Learned advocate Mr.Satta submits that the proceedings were being pursued by applicant Nos. 1 and 3. Upon their demise, their legal heirs were not aware of the pendency of the proceedings, and the remaining applicants were also unaware of the ongoing legal process, therefore, delay occurred in filing the first appeal. The present appeal is filed for condonation of delay of 2236 days. Learned advocate Mr. Tejas Satta submits that the claimants shall not press for interest for the said period of delay.

3. Per contra, learned AGP Mr. Rahul Dave has opposed the application for condonation of delay.

4. This Court has referred to the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Suresh Kumar V/s. State of Haryana and Others reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 896, wherein the Apex Court has held that even though there was long delay in filing the appeals, it was a case of compulsory acquisition and there had been a difference in the amount of compensation granted to some land losers vis-a-vis others. Relying on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Market Committee Hodal V/s. Krishan Murari, reported in 1996 (1) SC 311, wherein delay of 3240 days arising from the same acquisition had been condoned. The Apex Court has also relied on the decision rendered in the case of Huchanagouda V/s. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, reported in 2020 (19) SCC 236, wherein the Court had taken into account the poverty and illiteracy of the land loser and condoned the delay of more than 2,000 days. While condoning the delay, the Apex Court had observed that equities had to be balanced by ensuring that the determination of market value relates back to the preliminary notification - making sure that there is no prejudice to the acquiring authorities, as also no undue advantage to the land loser.

5. It is observed by the Apex Court that the appellants who approached the Court with delay, would not be granted interest for such period. Having considered the explanation offered and the submissions made in the above paragraph No.2, this Court is of the considered view that the application requires to be allowed and the delay is required to be condoned. In that background, the application is allowed.

6. Copy of this order shall be placed in the docket of the first appeal. Rule is made absolute.

(M. K. THAKKER,J)

NIVYA A. NAIR