IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 794 of

2026 In F/FIRST APPEAL/42/2026 With R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 795 of 2026 In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 48 of 2026 ==========================================================

NARMADABEN W/O DAHYABHAI PATEL (LHS OF PATEL DAHYABHAI SHAMJIBHAI) & ORS.

Versus DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION ==========================================================

Appearance IN CA NO.794 OF 2026 MR ADITYA S PATEL(12087) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 MR BHAVESH DESAI, ASSTGOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1 Appearance IN CA NO.794 OF 2026 MR ADITYA S PATEL(12087) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 MS HIMANI SHAH, ASSTGOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s)

No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER Date : 19/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGPs waive service of notice of Rule on behalf of State.

2. Learned advocate Mr.Aditya Patel submits that for the adjoining village namely Ankodia and Fatepura, this Court has granted compensation at the rate of Rs.308.25 per sq.mtr. and the village Gopalpura-I for which land of the applicant was acquired was the nearby village of the said villages. It is submitted that on getting the knowledge of judgment passed by this Court with regard to the adjoining villages, the applicant has taken advice from a local advocate and has filed the appeal and therefore, delay of 1547 days is caused in filing the appeal before this Court.

3. Learned AGPs have objected to this application.

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. Considering the explanation made herienabove as well as the contentions made in para nos. 7 to 16 coupled with the fact that as per the statement made by learned advocate Mr.Patel for the applicants, that they would not claim interest for the delayed period, this Court deems it fit to allow this application for condonation of delay.

6. In that background, the application is allowed and delay of 1547 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

7. 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.

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

(M. K. THAKKER,J)

M.M.MIRZA