IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 6180 of

2025

In F/FIRST APPEAL/34945/2025

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

LEGAL HEIRS OF PATEL SOMABHAI KHUSALDAS & ORS.

Versus

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MR AV PRAJAPATI(672) for the Applicant(s) No.

1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,2,3,3.1,3.2

MS.HIMANI SHAH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2

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

CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER

Date : 05/01/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Ms.Himani Shah

waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of State.

2. Learned advocate Mr.Prajapati submits that claimant

No.1/2 expired during the pendency of the reference and the subsequent filing of the application before the learned Reference Court for amendment. Learned advocate Mr.Prajapati submits that the claimants shall

not press for interest for the said period of delay.

3. Per contra, learned AGP Ms.Shah 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. This Court has also referred to 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. This Court has also referred to the decision rendered by the Apex Court 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. Considering the explanation offered in the application, particularly the facts narrated in paragraph 3 regarding the death of the original Claimant No. 1/2 during the pendency of the reference and the subsequent filing of the application before the learned Reference Court for amendment, this Court deems it fit to allow the application, condoning the delay of 1089 days occurred in preferring the first appeal. In that background, the application is allowed.

6. It is needless to clarify that the applicants-original claimants shall not be entitled to the interest in event of the enhancement amount of compensation, if any, for the interregnum period i.e. from the date of pronouncement of the impugned judgment and award till the date of filing of the present appeal.

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

(M. K. THAKKER,J)

ARCHANA S. PILLAI