SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 14746

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICERV/sKALUBHAI HARIBHAI
R/CA/2213/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 2213 of

2025 In F/FIRST APPEAL/9574/2025 With R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2214 of 2025 In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 9602 of 2025 With R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2220 of 2025 In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 9561 of 2025 With R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2230 of 2025 In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 9603 of 2025 With R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2231 of 2025 In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 9601 of 2025 With R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2244 of 2025 In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 9600 of 2025 With R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2261 of 2025 In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 9585 of 2025 With R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2265 of 2025 In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 9584 of 2025 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ✔

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

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR.

Versus KALUBHAI HARIBHAI ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR.BHAVESH DESAI, AGP for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER Date : 06/03/2026

JUDGMENT

1. The present applications are filed for condonation of delay of 775 days in filing the first appeal challenging the judgment and order passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge Ahmadabad Rural, Mirzapur in LAR No.127/ 2014 and other allied matters dated 21.10.2022. At the outset learned advocate appearing for both the parties submitted that in the other group of matters arising from the same common judgment this Court has rejected the application filed by the State.

2. Considering the decision this Court has referred the order passed by this Court in Civil Application No.2208 of 2025 in First Appeal No.9606/2025 and other allied matters wherein this Court has observed as under:

1. All the captioned applications are filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 praying for condoning the delay of 775 days in filing of first appeals.

2. Heard learned AGPs Mr. Rahul Dave and Ms. Dharitri Pancholi for the applicants and learned advocate Mr.Chinmay Gandhi for the respondents.

Perused the record.

3. Learned AGP, at the outset submitted that the applicants are aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award passed in land reference case Nos.127 of 2014 to 164 of 2014 dated 21.10.2022 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and Special Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural). The certified copy of the impugned judgment and award was applied on 2.11.2022 and received by the applicants on 15.11.2022. After receipt of the certified copy, the process of taking a decision to challenge the impugned award started. The files of the reference cases were travelled through different departments of the applicants. Learned AGP has relied upon the amendments made in the application. The process of decision making had started on 3-1-2023, the day on which the Legal Department had sent a letter to the Office of Government Leader to prefer an appeal. Thereafter also, the time was consumed on the administrative side. The Executive Engineer, Narmada Project sent a Demand Draft for requisite Court Fees to the Government Law Office on 15.5.2024. It is further contended that there is no intentional delay on the part of the applicants and there is no lethargy in challenging the impugned award. The decision to file an appeal was taken by the Legal Department after the process of scrutinizing the impugned judgment and award was done by various departments of the applicants. In such process, some time was consumed which resulted into delay. In the present case, considering the length of delay, even by imposing cost on the applicants, delay may be condoned. Except above submissions, no other submissions are made.

4. Per contra, learned advocate for the opponents – original claimants has vehemently objected and contended that while decidin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top