Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/3659/2010 2/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3659 of 2010
=========================================
KADAJI
CHHANAJI THAKOR AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT, THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, NARMADA WATER AND ANOTHER
=========================================Appearance
:
MR YM THAKORE
for the Petitioners
MS
MONALI BHATT, ASSTT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1,
None
for Respondent(s) : 2,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
Date
: 26/03/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD)
Heard
the learned counsel for the petitioners.
The
petitioners wanted to take advantage of decision of the Reference
Court 3.11.1999. In this relation, he preferred an application
under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act on 25.2.2000. If these
two dates are considered, i.e. 3.11.1999 and 25.2.2000, the
application as made was beyond the period of three months. No
certified copy of the award relied upon the petitioners was annexed
with the application so as to enable them to take advantage of
proviso of Section 28-A of the said Act for extension of limitation.
That being the position, the petitioners’ application came to be
rejected in the year 2003.
The
petitioners are relying on a decision of this Court dated 1.4.2005
rendered in Special Civil Application No.6033 of 2004 and Special
Civil Application No.5972 of 2004. We have read this decision, para
13 of which reads as under:
13. We
further clarify that it would be open to the respondent to reject
the application if he comes to a conclusion that the original
application submitted under the provisions of Section 28A of the Act
was not submitted within the period of limitation or if he finds
that there is any reason for not entertaining the application. In
other words, respondent No.2 shall look into the application on
merits and decide the same as we have not examined any other aspect
in the matter.
In
view of para 13 of the said decision, condonation of delay has not
been considered to be a factor which would go in favour of the
petitioners, rather this Court has clarified that if authority
comes to conclusion that the application if submitted against the
permissible time under Section 28-A then same may be rejected.
We
have noticed hereinabove that in the present case, the application
was submitted beyond the period of limitation and no certified copy
was filed to claim limitation along with the application. Subsequent
production cannot therefore, be considered to be the factor which can
be permitted to the petitioners to be available for condonation of
delay.
Further,
on being asked, the learned counsel for the petitioners was not in a
position to state as to who applied for copies and whether the copy
which he wants to produce was obtained by his agents. On this
count, the learned counsel was silent, so also the petition is
silent. There is no averment to that effect. The application was
rejected in 2003, the decision relied by the learned counsel for the
petitioners is of 2005 and we are in 2010. Therefore, we consider the
case to be defeated on the ground of delay and laches and it goes
against the petitioners. The application under Section 28-A of the
Land Acquisition Act was rightly dismissed as time barred.
In
above view of the matter, the petition has no force and the same is
dismissed.
(BHAGWATI
PRASAD, J.)
(J.C.UPADHYAYA,
J.)
omkar
Top