Five-year delay in challenging land acquisition award rejected; Gujarat High Court directs action to fix negligent officer’s personal liability

The State of Gujarat, through the Deputy Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings Department, Rajkot, acquired land in village Paddhari for construction of the Rajkot–Jamnagar four-lane State Highway.

Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued on 28.02.2008 and 08.05.2008 respectively.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award dated 01.09.2009, fixing compensation at ₹26.50 per sq. metre for agricultural land and ₹229.75 per sq. metre for non-agricultural land.

On references sought by the landowners, the Land Reference Court enhanced the compensation to ₹5,109 per sq. metre for agricultural land and ₹7,107 per sq. metre for non-agricultural land, together with statutory benefits and interest

The Reference Court’s judgment and award was passed on 30/31.12.2019.

The State filed the connected first appeals on 19.02.2025, accompanied by applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a delay of 1,790 days, exceeding five years.

The State attributed the delay to failure to communicate the award to the acquiring department, inter-departmental correspondence, obtaining legal opinions and sanctions, COVID-19-related difficulties, and arrangements for court fees and deposit of the awarded amount.

The landowners opposed the applications, contending that the delay resulted from gross negligence, failure of the Government Pleader to obtain and circulate the certified judgment, and prolonged inaction even after the State became aware of the award in February 2022.

The Court applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, under which delay may be condoned only when the applicant satisfies the Court that “sufficient cause” prevented timely filing.

Relying principally on Shivamma (Dead) by LRs v. Karnataka Housing Board, 2025 INSC 1104, the Court held that “sufficient cause” is elastic but has limits: the explanation must be genuine, bona fide, plausible, and free from gross negligence, deliberate inaction, or casual indifference; the length of delay is less important than the acceptability of the explanation.

The Court further relied on Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd., (2012) 3 SCC 563, State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO, (2005) 3 SCC 752, University of Delhi v. Union of India, (2020) 13 SCC 745, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bherulal, (2020) 10 SCC 654, and other authorities to hold that the State is not automatically entitled to preferential treatment and must demonstrate reasonable diligence; bureaucratic procedure may constitute sufficient cause only when it reflects genuine efforts rather than inefficiency or inaction.

Rules 51–53 of the Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) and Conduct of Legal Affairs of the Government Rules, 2009 require the Government Pleader to communicate the result of proceedings, obtain certified copies without delay, forward them to the concerned authorities, and provide an opinion on whether an appeal should be filed.

The Court found that the State’s explanation was not a bona fide account of unavoidable procedural delay but an “excuse” arising from gross negligence and inaction.

The In-charge Assistant Government Pleader knew the acquiring body but failed to communicate the judgment, obtain its certified copy, or comply with Rules 51–53 of the 2009 Rules.

Although the landowners informed the Deputy Executive Engineer about the award on 15.02.2022, the Rajkot-based departmental authorities continued unnecessary correspondence and raised non-material queries for more than a year before obtaining governmental sanction.

Even after sanction from the Legal Department in August 2023, the appeals were not filed until 19.02.2025, leaving an unexplained period of approximately eighteen months.

The COVID-19 exclusion period could not justify the subsequent inactivity, particularly since inter-departmental communications continued during the pandemic and modern communication methods were available.

The Court also held that the asserted merits of the appeals and possible prejudice to the public exchequer were irrelevant to the Section 5 inquiry, which concerned only whether the delay was sufficiently explained.

Applying the distinction between an acceptable “explanation” and an administrative “excuse,” the Court concluded that the State had not acted with reasonable diligence.

All connected applications for condonation of delay were therefore dismissed, with the result that the accompanying first appeals could not proceed on merits.

The Court noted that the awarded amounts, including statutory benefits, had already been withdrawn by the landowners and observed that prompt action could have prevented such withdrawal.

The Secretary, Roads and Buildings Department, State of Gujarat, was directed to examine the matter and take necessary steps to fix personal liability on the officers responsible for the negligent conduct.

The Assistant Government Pleader was directed to bring the judgment to the Secretary’s notice.