STATE OF GUJARAT vs JIVRAJ GOVINDBHAI
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/CA/1690/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1690 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL/6265/2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1692 of 2025
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 6273 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1693 of 2025
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 6401 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1715 of 2025
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 6267 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1720 of 2025
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 6430 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1731 of 2025
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 6406 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1746 of 2025
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 6396 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1747 of 2025
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 6393 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1751 of 2025
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 6410 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1753 of 2025
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 6390 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1754 of 2025
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 6269 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI Sd/-
Page 1 of 19
Uploaded by TAUSIF SAIYED(HC01401) on Tue Aug 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 16:11:16 IST 2026
C/CA/1690/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2026
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
JIVRAJ GOVINDBHAI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BHAVESH DESAI, AGP for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR BM MANGUKIYA(437) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
MS BELA A PRAJAPATI(1946) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK MUCHHALA for the Respondent No.1 in CA 1692/2025
MR YAGNESHKUMAR JOSHI for the Respondent in CA 1731/2025,
1747/2025 & 1751/2025
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 03/08/2026
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)
1. This order will dispose of all the applications, which were heard
together on account of common legal issue raised therein.
2. The captioned applications are being filed by the State Government
and its Department – Deputy Executive Engineer, R & B Division,
Rajkot, seeking condonation of delay in filing the first appeals. The first
appeals are directed against the judgment and award passed by the
Reference Court in land acquisition proceedings. In all applications, there
is a delay of 1790 days i.e. more than five years. The award rendered by
the Land Reference Court was on 30.12.2019 and first appeals along with
the delay condonation applications were presented before this Court on
19.02.2025.
Page 2 of 19
Uploaded by TAUSIF SAIYED(HC01401) on Tue Aug 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 16:11:16 IST 2026
C/CA/1690/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2026
3. The brief facts giving rise to file present applications for
condonation of delay are stated to be as under:
(1) The lands of respondents – owners situated at village:
Paddhari, Dist.: Rajkot were acquired for making four lane road
known as Rajkot – Jamnagar State Highway.
(2) Notification under Section 4 was issued on 28.02.2008.
(3) On 08.05.2008 declaration made under Section 6 of the L.A.
Act.
(4) Thereafter, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Rajkot
passed an Award (LAQ No. 5 of 2008 dated 01.09.2009) fixing the
price Rs.26.50ps per sq.mt for agriculture land and Rs.229.75ps per
sq.mt. for non-agriculture land.
(5) The land owners sought Reference under Section 18 of the
L.A. Act.
(6) The Reference Court in a group of Land Reference Cases as
referred above, enhanced the price for the non-agriculture land to
Rs.7107/- per sq.mt and Rs.5109/- per sq.mt for agriculture land
along with the statutory benefits and interest.
4. In such circumstances, the captioned applications filed seeking
condonation of delay in filing First Appeals.
5. The grounds of delay are explained as under:
(1) The acquiring body, R & B Department, Rajkot was
informed on 15.02.2022 by the counsel appearing of the land
owners that the impugned award dated 31.12.2019 came to be
passed by the Land Reference Court.
Page 3 of 19
Uploaded by TAUSIF SAIYED(HC01401) on Tue Aug 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 16:11:16 IST 2026
C/CA/1690/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2026
(2) Vide its letters dated 25.02.2022 and 12.04.2022, the office
of the Deputy Executive Engineer, Rajkot sought an opinion from
the Incharge Assistant Government Pleader of the case.
(3) Vide its letter dated 12.05.2022, the office of the Deputy
Executive Engineer sought an opinion of the Special Land
Acquisition Officer.
(4) Vide communication dated 24.05.2022, the Special Land
Acquisition Officer sought a copy of the judgment from the R & B
Office, Rajkot and the same was provided on 07.06.2022 and
thereafter, on 13.06.2022, the Special Land Acquisition Officer
gave his opinion to prefer an appeal against the award impugned.
(5) Vide communications dated 06.08.2022, and 30.08.2022, the
Higher Authority of R & B Rajkot i.e. Executive Engineer and
Superintendent Engineer were intimated about the factual aspect of
the case and other things for filing the appeal.
(6) Vide communications dated 23.02.2023, 21.03.2023 and
05.04.2023, the sanction sought from the State Government for
filing the appeal and in pursuant to the sanction, the Special Land
Acquisition Officer was informed to provide further reasons for
filing appeal (05.04.2023) and accordingly, on 25.05.2023, he had
provided reasons as sought by the R & B Office.
(7) The further time was consumed in taking final decision of
the appeal and it was from 25.05.2023 to 07.07.2023 and
thereafter, the Circle Officer, R & B, vide communication dated
Page 4 of 19
Uploaded by TAUSIF SAIYED(HC01401) on Tue Aug 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 16:11:16 IST 2026
C/CA/1690/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2026
20.07.2023, had directed to prepare a proposal for filing the appeal.
(8) Vide communications dated 01.08.2023, 17.08.2023,
22.08.2023, 08.02.2024, 17.06.2024, 03.07.2024, 01.08.2024,
17.08.2024, 20.11.2024 and 18.02.2025, the time was consumed in
preparing draft, getting sanction from the legal department for
filing the appeal, and other things like arrangement of Court’s fees,
sought sanction to deposit the awarded amount, etc.
(9) Lastly, on 19.02.2025, the office of the Government Law
Officer, High Court of Gujarat, filed the First Appeals along with
the applications for condonation of delay.
6. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the In-charge AGP of
the case Mr. Mahesh Joshi filed an affidavit explaining steps taken by
him after the judgment and award dated 30.12.2019. In his affidavit, he
made the following explanation:
(1) That the concerned department i.e. Deputy Executive
Engineer, Road and Building, Sub Division, Rajkot was not made a
party to the proceedings and therefore, due to inadvertent error, the
office of the R & B Rajkot could not be informed about the passing
of the award.
(2) By placing reliance on the order of the Supreme Court, it
was explained that due to COVID-19 Pandemic Situation, the
period of limitation commencing from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022
required to be excluded and fresh limitation period of 90 days from
01.03.2022 required to be computed to ascertain the actual days of
Page 5 of 19
Uploaded by TAUSIF SAIYED(HC01401) on Tue Aug 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 16:11:16 IST 2026
C/CA/1690/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2026
delay.
(3) The delay is not deliberate or intentional and partly
attributable to the force majeure due to COVID-19 Pandemic and
partly due to factual circumstances explained herein including
failure in intimating the concerned department.
7. Learned AGP Mr. Bhavesh Desai, in addition to the grounds
mentioned in the application, contends that; there was a delay in applying
the certified copy of the judgment and communicating the same to the
concerned department and there was a further delay in seeking opinion of
the concerned department and thereafter, since 2022, there was impact of
COVID-19 Pandemic and officers of the State Government were also
involved in the emergency duties, as a result, neither the acquiring body
nor the Special Acquisition Officer could initiate the process promptly. In
addition to that, he contends that the appellant has good case on merits
and having regard to the amount awarded by the Land Reference Court,
the impact on the public exchequer would be large and in that view of the
matter, the State or its instrumentalities representing a collective cause
should be reconsidered; that, the adoption of strict standard of proof in
respect of State and its instrumentalities, where no one takes personal
responsibility in processing the matter expeditiously, would lead to grave
miscarriage and therefore, by adopting a pragmatic approach, delay may
be condoned and in the facts of the present case, the delay was not tainted
with malafides and deliberate inaction.
8. To butters the contentions, the heavy reliance being placed on the
case of (i) University of Delhi Vs. Union of India (2020 (13) SCC 745) ,
to contend that impersonal nature of the State’s functioning should be
Page 6 of 19
Uploaded by TAUSIF SAIYED(HC01401) on Tue Aug 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 16:11:16 IST 2026
C/CA/1690/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2026
given due regard, while ensuring that individual defaults are not nitpicked
at the cost of collective interest. (ii) State of Nagaland vs. Lipok, AO
(2005 3 SCC 752) , wherein the Supreme Court acknowledged the
bureaucratic realities that often account for delay in Government decision
making as the Government actions are “conducted by officers who cannot
act on their own, but must obtain approvals at different levels” and thus,
the element of delay is almost “inbuilt in the Governmental decision
making process and accordingly, the Supreme Court held that, factors
which are peculiar and characteristic of functioning of the Governmental
conditions requires adoption of pragmatic and justice oriented approach
by the Courts in matters pertaining to condonation of delay.
9. In such circumstances, Mr. Desai would contend that the
explanation offered for condonation of delay is convincing and
satisfactory and having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the present case, the delay attributable in procedure delay and incidental
to the very decision making process of the state instrumentalities may be
liberally construed the term “sufficient cause” to condone the delay and
therefore, it was prayed that, if the appeals filed are thrown out due to
lapse of limitation period, then, public interest would suffers and in that
view of the matter, the applications may be allowed so as to do
substantial justice between the parties.
10. Mr. S.P. Majmudar, learned counsel and Mr. B.M. Mangukiya,
learned counsel appearing for different land owners-respondents
vehemently opposed the applications and submitted that, the applicant-
Government Authorities failed to demonstrate any sufficient cause and
the explanations offered are not convincing as to why the applicant could
Page 7 of 19
Uploaded by TAUSIF SAIYED(HC01401) on Tue Aug 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 16:11:16 IST 2026
C/CA/1690/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2026
not have filed the appeals within the prescribed period of limitation. The
Law Officers as well as the Officers of the R & B Department, Rajkot
had not acted with reasonable diligence in pursuing the proceedings and
in casual approach, they took five years in filing the appeals against the
judgment of Land Reference Court. The grounds mentioned in the
applications are nothing but lame excuses and it cannot be believed to be
an “explanation” to the satisfaction of the court for condoning the delay.
It was the admission on the part of the In-charge Assistant Government
Pleader of the land reference cases that, inadvertently, he could not
inform the concerned party about the passing of the award and also he did
not apply for certified copy of the judgment. Even after the COVID-19
Pandemic, the applicant-State, without any reason, did not acted promptly
and had consumed three years thereafter in filing the appeals. The offices
of R & B were housing in the Rajkot City itself. Despite of this, they took
3 to 4 years for inter department sanctions to file the appeals. Thus,
before the Court of Law, the statutory bodies and private bodies stand on
the same footing and law is equally applicable to both. The delay is an
inordinate delay and in the facts of the present case, the grounds referred
in the applications for delay, are not sufficiently explained and having
regard to the conduct of the officers, they remained negligent throughout
the decision making process and therefore, the delay is attributable to
serious latches and negligence on the part of the applicant-State and
therefore, no premium can be given to the lethargic and negligent
approach on the part of the officers of the applicant and therefore, the
delay may not be allowed as a matter of course by accepting the plea that,
dismissal of the matter on the ground of bar of limitation will cause injury
to the public interest.
Page 8 of 19
Uploaded by TAUSIF SAIYED(HC01401) on Tue Aug 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 16:11:16 IST 2026
C/CA/1690/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2026
11. In support of their contentions, the following case laws having
been relied:
(i) Maniben Devraj shah vs. Municipal Corporation, Mumbai
(2012 (5) SCC 157)
(ii) Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad vs. Voltas Limited
(AIR 1995 Gujarat 29)
(iii) Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India
Limited (2012 (3) SCC 563)
(iv) Shivamma (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Karnataka Housing Board
(2025 INSC 1104)
(v) Pathapati Subbareddy (Died) by Lrs. Vs. Special Deputy
Collector (2024 (12) SCC 336)
In such circumstances, it was submitted that, no case is made out
for condoning the delay in preferring the appeals against the award of the
Reference Court and thus, the applications may not be entertained.
12. We have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned
counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the case records
as well as affidavits, affidavit-in-reply filed by the parties.
13. In the facts of the present case, the captioned applications are being
filed by the State Government, seeking condonation of delay in filing first
appeals. The delay is of 1790 days, as the judgment impugned delivered
on 31.12.2019 and appeals along with present applications filed on
19.02.2025. In such circumstances, the issue falls for our determination as
to whether “sufficient cause” exists for condoning the delay in filing the
Page 9 of 19
Uploaded by TAUSIF SAIYED(HC01401) on Tue Aug 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 16:11:16 IST 2026
C/CA/1690/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2026
first appeals?
14. All the applications are filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,
1963 which says that, any appeal or any application, may be admitted
after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the
Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making
the application within such period. The term “sufficient cause” has not
been defined in the Limitation Act, nor, provide any guidance on what it
constituent elements ought to be. Instead, Section 5 leaves the task of
determining appropriate reasons for seeking condonation of delay to
judicial interpretation and exercise of discretion upon the facts and
individual circumstances of each case.
Recently, the Supreme Court, in the case of Shivamma (Dead) by
Lrs. Vs. Karnataka Housing Board (2025 INSC 1104), after referring
the earlier all its judgment on the subject “sufficient cause”, held and
observed as follows:
“that, the phrase “sufficient cause” is an expression of elastic import,
incapable of precise definition, yet not without boundaries. Its purpose
is to empower courts to advance the cause of justice by preventing
genuine litigants from being shut out on account of unavoidable delays.
At the same time, it is equally clear that the phrase is not charter for
indolence or a device to revive stale claims that the law of limitation
otherwise extinguishes. The Supreme Court has further observed that,
the burden to establish the sufficient cause lies upon the parties seeking
condonation and court must be satisfied that the cause is real, Bonafide
and free of negligence. The sufficiency of the cause is to be determined
contextually, on the totality of circumstances, with due regard to the
Page 10 of 19
Uploaded by TAUSIF SAIYED(HC01401) on Tue Aug 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 16:11:16 IST 2026
C/CA/1690/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2026
conduct of the applicant and the prejudice caused to the opposite
parties. The courts must not condone gross negligence, deliberate
inaction or casual indifference. The expression “sufficient cause” must
be construed in a manner that advances substantial justice while
preserving the discipline of limitation. The courts are not to be swayed
by sympathy or technical rigidity but rather by judicious appraisal of
whether the applicant acted with reasonable diligence in pursuing the
remedy. Where the explanation is bona fide, plausible and consistent
with ordinary human conduct, courts have leaned towards condonation.
Where the negligence, want of good faith or casual approach is
discernible, condonation has been refused. The Supreme Court further
on the subject “length of delay” held and observed that, the length of
delay is immaterial and what matter is acceptability of explanation as
the decisive factor is the adequacy of the cause shown, not the length of
delay. What is critical is whether the party seeking condonation acted
with reasonable diligence during the prescribed period and whether the
reasons advanced demonstrate a genuine inability to file within time.”
15. In the present case at hand, the applicant-State and its
instrumentalities (Road & Building Department, Rajkot) intend to
challenge the judgment and award of the Reference Court. One of the
contentions of the State raised is that, owing to the peculiar nature of their
functioning should be given due regard, as the State represents the
collective cause of the public, any delay on its part ought not to be
viewed through the same lens as that of private party. A strict standard of
proof in respect of State or its instrumentalities, where no one takes
personal responsibility in processing the matters expeditiously would lead
to grave miscarriage of public justice and thus, by adopting pragmatic
approach, the delay without insisting upon explaining every day’s delay
Page 11 of 19
Uploaded by TAUSIF SAIYED(HC01401) on Tue Aug 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 16:11:16 IST 2026
C/CA/1690/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2026
may require to be condoned ( Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition vs.
K.V. Ayisumma (1996 10 SCC 634) , State of Haryana vs. Chandramani
(1996 3 SCC 132) , State of Nagaland vs. Lipok AO. (2005 3 SCC 752) ,
Sheo Raj Singh vs. Union of India (2023 10 SCC 531) , Manipur vs.
Koting Lamkang (2019 10 SCC 408) , University of Delhi vs. Union of
India (2020 13 SCC 745) .
16. We may profitably refer the observations made by the Supreme
Court in the case of Shivamma (Dead) (supra) , more particularly
paragraph-210 to 216. In the said paragraphs, the Supreme Court after
referring the judgments of Postmaster General vs. Living Media India
Limited (2012 3 SCC 563) , Lanka Venkateswarlu vs. State of A.P.
(Manu SC 0153-2011) , State of U.P. vs. Amarnath Yadav (2014 2 SCC
422) , State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bherulal (2020 10 SCC 654) ,
University of Delhi vs. Union of India (2020 13 SCC 745) , Government
of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) vs. Borse Brothers
Engineers & Contractors Private Limited (2021 6 SCC 460) , State of
Odissa vs. Sunanda Mahakuda (2021 11 SCC 560) , State of U.P. Vs.
Sabha Narain (2022 9 SCC 266) and Union of India vs. Byramji
Jeejeebhoy (2024 INSC 262) , held and observed thus:
“ What may be discerned from the aforesaid is that, the jurisprudence on
condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, particularly
where the State or any of its instrumentalities is involved, has witnessed
a significant shift. From a regime that once accorded preferential
indulgence to the State, premised on its bureaucratic complexities and
institutional inertia, the law has now evolved to insist upon the parity
between the Government and the private litigants. The rational is that,
the public interest is better served not by excusing Governmental
Page 12 of 19
Uploaded by TAUSIF SAIYED(HC01401) on Tue Aug 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 16:11:16 IST 2026
C/CA/1690/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2026
inefficiency, but by fostering accountability, diligence and responsibility
in the conduct of public litigation. No litigant, be it a private party or
State, or any of its functionaries is entitled to a broader margin of error,
falling in the category of inaction, negligence or casualness in the
matters of limitation. Governmental litigants, no less than private
parties must demonstrate bonafide, sufficient and cogent cause for
delay. What has been conveyed in so many words, by the decision of
Postmaster General (supra), is that while excuses premised solely on
bureaucratic lethargy cannot, by themselves constitute sufficient cause,
there may be nonetheless be circumstances where the explanation
offered, though involving bureaucratic procedures, reflects a genuine
and bonafide cause for the delay. In such instances the true test is
whether the explanation demonstrates that the State acted with
reasonable diligence, and whether the delay occurred despite efforts to
act within time. Where such bonafides are established, the court retains
the discretion to condone the delay. In other words, Postmaster General
(supra) does not shut the door on the condonation of delay by the State
in all cases involving bureaucratic processes. The real distinction lies
between a case where the delay is the result of gross negligence,
inaction or casual indifference on the part of the State and a case where
delay has occurred despite sincere efforts owing to the inherent
complexities of the Governmental decision making. While the former
category must necessarily be rejected to uphold the discipline of
limitation, the later can still attract judicial indulgence where public
interest is at stake and the cause is shown to be reasonable. In this
regard, the vital test that has to be employed, wherever sufficient cause
is sought to be demonstrated on the ground of bureaucratic
inefficiencies is to distinguish between whether the same is an
“explanation” or an “excuse”.
Page 13 of 19
Uploaded by TAUSIF SAIYED(HC01401) on Tue Aug 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 16:11:16 IST 2026
C/CA/1690/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2026
17. The material on record as well as the explanation offered, is
examined in the light of the aforestated preposition of law. The
explanation put forth by the applicant-State Authority does not appear to
be credible and bonafide. It is on record that, there was negligence,
inaction on the part of the concerned officer of the R & B Department,
Rajkot Division. The manner in which under the guise of decision making
process, the matter was processed would indicative of the fact that, the
delay is the result of gross negligence, inaction on the part of the officer
concerned.
The reasons for our aforesaid findings are as follows:
(i) The Land Reference Court, Rajkot had disposed of the group
of land acquisition matters on 31.12.2019; the in-charge
AGP of the case, did not have care to apply for certified
copy of the impugned judgment and award of the Land
Reference Court, nor, informed to the Special Land
Acquisition Officer; the Law Officer failed to follow the
Rule-51 and 52 of The Law Officers (Appointment and
Conditions of Service) and the Conduct of Legal Affairs of
the Government Rules, 2009; Rule-51 says that, as soon as
suit is decided, the concerned Government Pleader shall
communicate the nature of the decision to Government and
to the Collector or other officers concerned, giving in
important cases a brief statement of the grounds on which
the decision is based; Rule-52 mandates that, the AGP shall
then obtain with little delay certified copies of the judgment
Page 14 of 19
Uploaded by TAUSIF SAIYED(HC01401) on Tue Aug 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 16:11:16 IST 2026
C/CA/1690/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2026
and decree and same shall be forwarded immediately to the
Collector and other officers concerned and others including
the Legal Department, Gandhinagar; Rule-53 further caste
duty on the AGP to submit his opinion as to whether the
decision should be accepted or appealed against; the
explanation by the AGP in the present case is contrary to the
Rules as referred above; he was very well aware that the
acquiring body was R & B Division, Rajkot; Despite of this,
he did not apply for certified copies and never intimated to
anyone about passing of the judgment and decree which
shows the inaction on the part of concerned officer;
(ii) In the present case, the land owners vide their letter dated
15.02.2022, informed the Deputy Executive Engineer,
Rajkot about passing of the judgment and asked to deposit
the awarded amount. The Higher Office of the Deputy
Executive Engineer is housing in Rajkot City i.e. Executive
Engineer, Superintendent Engineer were working in Rajkot
City itself. Despite of this, from 17.02.2022 to 21.03.2023,
the office of R & B through its officers, entered into
unnecessary communications and by raising non-material
queries and on technicalities, they did not take steps to file
appeal expeditiously. The office of R & B got sanction from
the Government in the month of March-2023, thereafter also,
up to 22.08.2023, no steps were being taken to pursue the
proceedings. Even after the sanction from the Legal
Department (23.08.2023), the appeals had not been filed till
19.02.2025; the papers were available. The necessary offices
Page 15 of 19
Uploaded by TAUSIF SAIYED(HC01401) on Tue Aug 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 16:11:16 IST 2026
C/CA/1690/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2026
of R & B were working in Rajkot itself. The R & B Office
was knowing about the pendency of the land acquisition
cases. The ground of COVID-19 Pandemic would not come
to rescue to the applicant as even during the period of
COVID-19, they made inter se communications to the
offices and in this modern technology world, everything is
possible in a quick manner. Even after COVID-19 period,
i.e. from 28.02.2022 to 19.02.2025 i.e. the date of filing of
the appeals, the State and its instrumentalities remained
inactive which demonstrates their inaction and not acted
with due diligence in pursuing the proceedings. Thus,
therefore, the explanation, offered, in our opinion, is not
satisfactory and convincing and does not fall under the
phrase “sufficient cause”, as the same is nothing but a lame
excuse by the officers concerned to deny responsibility and
consequences and it can be said to be a defensive action.
Therefore, the explanations as offered in the applications for
delay in preferring the appeals would not demonstrate
genuineness of the action. On the contrary, it shows gross
negligence, lack of bonafides, casualness in conduct of the
officers concerned.
18. It is the contention of the applicant-State that, if the
delay is not condoned, then, it would lead to grave
miscarriage of public justice as the State is represents the
collective cause of community and as such there was no
malafide. We are not agreed with the said contention. The
Page 16 of 19
Uploaded by TAUSIF SAIYED(HC01401) on Tue Aug 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 16:11:16 IST 2026
C/CA/1690/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2026
Supreme Court in the referred judgment ( Shivamma (Dead) (supra),
while dealing with the said issue, has answered and explained that
whatever the strong case on merits, is no ground for condonation of delay
and the court concerned has to inquire as to whether sufficient cause has
been demonstrated for filing the appeal within prescribed period of
limitation and in the process of that inquiry, the merits of the case are
wholly extraneous to this inquiry. If the courts were to look into the
merits of the matter at the stage of inquiry, it would blurr the boundaries
between preliminary procedural question and substantive adjudication
thereby conflating two distinct stages of judicial scrutiny. The purpose of
Section 5 of Limitation Act is not to determine whether the claim is
legally or factually strong, but only whether the applicant had a
reasonable justification for the delay. In the facts of present case, as
discussed above, except inter se communications, nothing on record to
justify the delay caused in preferring the appeals. The officer concerned
could have used modern technologies i.e. inter se communications could
be possible by e-mail and through messenger, more particularly all the
offices located in the Rajkot City itself. On perusal of the inter se
communications, it is evident that, the unnecessary queries were raised,
despite of opinion of the concerned officers, the repeated opinions were
being called for which fact demonstrates that, the office of Deputy
Executive Engineer, Executive Engineer, Superintendent Engineer and
other officers of Rajkot R & B Division including the Law Officers were
not acted with reasonable diligence in pursuing the remedy and the
explanation in the form of “excuse” are not bonafide, plausible and
having regard to the conduct of the officers and the manner in which they
took five years in filing delay condonation applications shows negligent
Page 17 of 19
Uploaded by TAUSIF SAIYED(HC01401) on Tue Aug 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 16:11:16 IST 2026
C/CA/1690/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2026
act and casual approach on their part.
19. For the reasons aforementioned, in our opinion, the reasons set
forth for the delay are totally insufficient to condone the delay and the
explanation is no explanation much less sufficient or satisfactory
explanation, which can be said to constitute ‘sufficient cause’ for not
preferring the appeals within prescribed time period.
20. Accordingly, the captioned applications failed and are hereby
dismissed. We are constrained to observe that, after pronouncement of the
judgment and award of the Land Reference Court and during the
pendency of the applications, the amount whatever deposited along with
the amount of statutory benefits by the State, has already been withdrawn
by the land owners. If the steps would have taken promptly, then, this
situation of withdrawing the 100% amount could have been avoided.
Thus, by pursuing the proceedings by the officers of R & B Department
would nothing but wastage of judicial time. We restrained ourselves for
imposing cost on wastage of judicial time, however, we direct the
Secretary, R & B Department, State of Gujarat to look into the matter and
take necessary action to fix the personal liability of the concerned officer
who acted negligent in pursuing the remedy so that, in future, such kind
of instances can be avoided. In this regard, we may refer the observations
made by the Supreme Court in the case of Shivamma (Dead). (supra). In
para-210 of the judgment, it was observed that, “the public interest should
better served by excusing Governmental inefficiency, but by fostering
accountability, diligent and responsibility in the conduct of public
litigation.”
Page 18 of 19
Uploaded by TAUSIF SAIYED(HC01401) on Tue Aug 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 16:11:16 IST 2026
C/CA/1690/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2026
21. Learned Assistant Government Pleader shall bring to the notice of
Secretary, R & B Department about passing of this judgment.
Sd/-
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
Sd/-
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
TAUSIF SAIYED
Page 19 of 19
Uploaded by TAUSIF SAIYED(HC01401) on Tue Aug 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 16:11:16 IST 2026