THAKOR BABAJI VADHAJI Vs. DEPUTY COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr Jinesh H. Kapadia, learned advocate submitted that the first appeal arises out of common judgment and order passed by the learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur in Land Acquisition Reference case nos.763 of 1999 to 781 of 1999 and 607 of 1999 to 625 of 1999. It is submitted that the amount came to be deposited after passing of the award which, was informed by the advocate of the applicants with a request to withdraw the same. It is then that the applicants came to know about the judgment. The amount awarded is Rs.17.40. Subsequently, the applicants also came to know about the first appeals being first appeal nos.4154 to 4157 of 2018 and 4166 to 4167 of 2018 preferred before this Court challenging the very same award. It is submitted that the claimants, are illiterate persons and unable to understand the intricacies of delay which has occurred in filing the captioned appeal. It is submitted that owing to the reasons beyond the control of the claimants, that the claimants could not approach this Court in time. Owing to heavy rain fall and other circumstances, that the applicants have suffered a huge loss and were short of funds and hence, could not take further steps. Recently, after collecting the papers and taking necessary advise, it was decided to prefer an appeal. While doing so, the applicants also arranged for the funds towards the Court and professional fees. It is submitted that the claimants, have a very good strong case on merits inasmuch as, the method adopted by the Reference Court is erroneous. Instead of 50%, the Reference Court has deducted 75% on yield method basis.

(2.) Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Dhiraj Singh (Dead) Through Legal Representative vs. State of Haryana reported in (2014) 14 SCC 127. It is submitted that the Apex Court, has held and observed that while condoning the delay, equities can be balanced by denying the claimants' interest for the period for which they did not approach the Court. It has also been held and observed that the substantive rights of the applicants should not be allowed to be defeated on technical grounds by taking hypertechnical view self-imposed limitations. The Apex Court, has noted that in the matter of compensation for land acquisition, the approach of the Court has to be pragmatic and not pedantic.

(3.) Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of K. Subbarayudu vs. Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition ) reported in (2017) 12 SCC 840. The Apex Court, in paragraph 12, has held and observed that with the acquisition of lands, the lifeline of the agriculturist is lost. There may be omission on the part of the claimants to adopt extra vigilance; but the same need not be used as a ground to depict them with negligence or want of bona fides. In the case of acquisition of lands of agriculturists, the courts ought to adopt a pragmatic approach to award just and reasonable compensation and not be pedantic in their approach.