Case Note & Summary
The Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer, Godhra, and others (the State) filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of a 2386-day delay in preferring a First Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The appeal was against the judgment and order dated 30.06.2018 passed by the Land Reference Court (Principal Senior Civil Judge, Godhara) in Land Reference Case No. 481 of 2008, which had allowed additional compensation of Rs. 84,9.13 ps per sq. mts to the claimant, along with solatium and interest. The State's only explanation for the delay was that the file traveled to various tables to take a decision on whether to file the appeal. The respondent, Madhukantaben Lakshmikant Shah, did not appear. The Court, after hearing the learned Assistant Government Pleader, Mr. Bharat Vyas, examined the explanation. The Court noted that the State had merely stated that the file moved from table to table, which is a routine administrative process and does not constitute 'sufficient cause' for such an enormous delay. The Court emphasized that the State, being a model litigant, must act with diligence and cannot claim the benefit of laxity. The Court dismissed the application, refusing to condone the delay, and consequently, the accompanying First Appeal also stood dismissed.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause - Government Delay - The State sought condonation of 2386 days delay in filing appeal against land acquisition award, citing internal file movement as reason. The Court held that mere administrative delay or routine explanation of file moving from table to table does not constitute 'sufficient cause' for condonation of such huge delay. The Court dismissed the application, finding no sufficient cause shown. (Paras 1-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the delay of 2386 days in filing the First Appeal against the judgment and award dated 30.06.2018 passed by the Land Reference Court should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, when the only explanation is that the file traveled to various tables for decision.
Final Decision
The application is dismissed. Consequently, the accompanying First Appeal also stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Sufficient cause
- Government delay
- Limitation Act
- 1963 Section 5
- Land Acquisition Act
- 1984 Section 54
Case Details
R/Civil Application (For Condonation of Delay) No. 5723 of 2025 in F/First Appeal/35411/2025
Mr. Bharat Vyas (Asstt. Government Pleader) for applicants, Ms. Nidhi P. Barot for respondent
Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer, Godhra & Ors.
Madhukantaben Lakshmikant Shah
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil application for condonation of delay in filing first appeal against land acquisition award.
Remedy Sought
The State (applicants) sought condonation of 2386 days delay in preferring the First Appeal against the judgment and award dated 30.06.2018 passed by the Land Reference Court.
Filing Reason
The State intended to challenge the enhanced compensation awarded by the Reference Court but delayed in filing the appeal due to internal file movement.
Previous Decisions
The Land Reference Court allowed the reference and granted additional compensation of Rs. 84,9.13 ps per sq. mts with solatium and interest vide judgment dated 30.06.2018 in Land Reference Case No. 481 of 2008.
Issues
Whether the delay of 2386 days in filing the appeal should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, when the only explanation is that the file traveled to various tables for decision.
Submissions/Arguments
Learned AGP Mr. Bharat Vyas submitted that the file traveled to various tables to take decision whether to file appeal, which caused the delay. He referred to paragraphs 3 to 23 of the petition.
Ratio Decidendi
Mere administrative delay or routine explanation of file moving from table to table does not constitute 'sufficient cause' for condonation of huge delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The State, as a model litigant, must act with diligence and cannot claim benefit of laxity.
Judgment Excerpts
In this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the State of Gujarat seeks to condone the delay of 2386 days occurred in preferring the First Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and order dated 30.06.2018, passed by the Land Reference Court in Land Reference Case No. 481 of 2008.
Learned AGP referred to para 3 to 23 of the petition and submitted that the file travels to various tables to take decision that whether the Appeal has to be filed or not.
The Court finds that the explanation offered by the State is not sufficient to condone the huge delay of 2386 days. The State has merely stated that the file moved from table to table, which is a routine administrative process and does not constitute 'sufficient cause'.
Procedural History
The Land Acquisition Officer acquired land for public purpose and passed an award. The claimant sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was allowed by the Reference Court on 30.06.2018 granting additional compensation. The State intended to appeal but delayed by 2386 days. The State filed this application for condonation of delay on an unspecified date in 2025. The High Court heard the application and dismissed it on 09.03.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Limitation Act, 1963: Section 5
- Land Acquisition Act, 1984: Section 54, Section 18
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 96
