Oral Order

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Mr. Desai waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondents.

2. This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 2378 days occurred in filing the captioned first appeal

3. Learned advocate Mr. Nitin Amin for the applicants submits that an identically situated claimant, whose lands were also acquired by the acquiring body for the same purpose, has been awarded at the rate of Rs.65/- per sq. mtr. by the Land Court at Botad. Learned advocate Mr. Nitin Amin submits that due to bifurcation, the present proceedings were adjudicated by the learned Court at Bhavnagar, wherein the market value was determined at the rate of Rs.6/- per sq. mtr. for jirayat and Rs.10/- per sq. mtr. for irrigated land, which is subject matter of challenge before this Court. Learned advocate Mr. Nitin Amin submits that the learned Reference Court has delivered the judgment on 20.07.2018 and the respondent has deposited the amount of compensation in the month of November 2024 i.e. after the period of 6 years and 4 months. Learned advocate Mr. Nitin Amin submits that the applicants were dispossessed from the land more than 30 years and on receiving the amount of compensation as well as on getting the information with regard to the other awards referred to hereinabove, the present appeal came to be filed. Learned advocate Mr. Nitin Amin further would not claim the interest for the interregnum period, i.e., from the date of the award till the date of filing the application and therefore, he prays that this application may be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned AGP Mr. Desai has opposed the application for condonation of delay.

5. This Court has referred to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suresh Kumar V/s. State of Haryana and Others reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 896, wherein the Hon'ble 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 Hon'ble 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 Hon'ble 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 Hon'ble 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.

          5.1 It is observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the appellants who approached the Court with delay, would not be granted interest for such period. Having considered the explanation offered in the application and the submissions made in the above paragraph No.3, 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. 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.