Safiya Malik

The High Court of Gujarat Single Bench of Justice M. K. Thakker dismissed the Archaeological Survey of India’s plea to condone delay in challenging a compensation award and imposed costs of Rs. 1 lakh for suppressing material facts about the ongoing execution proceedings. The dispute concerned compensation payable to farmers from Dholavira village in Kutch whose land had been acquired by the authority, with the claimants initiating execution to secure payment. The Bench recorded that the land was acquired more than two decades ago, yet reasonable compensation had not been paid. The court directed the costs to be deposited within three weeks, recovered from the responsible officers, and remitted to the executing court for disbursal to the claimants.

The award determined the market value of acquired land situated in the same village on the basis of a sale deed executed by a government department and produced before the Reference Court. The applicants sought to file first appeals against the award after a delay of 718 days and accordingly moved applications seeking condonation of delay.

Also Read: Supreme Court Urges Govts To Digitize Land Records Using Tamper-Proof Technology Like Blockchain

The explanation offered for the delay was that, after obtaining the certified copy of the judgment, the matter was forwarded through internal administrative channels, including seeking legal opinion and mandatory approval from higher authorities. It was contended that the delay occurred due to administrative procedures and not due to any deliberate inaction.

The opposing parties contested the applications, pointing out that execution proceedings had already been initiated and that repeated assurances were given by the applicant authority before the executing court to deposit the awarded amount. It was contended that despite knowledge of execution proceedings, the applicant failed to disclose these facts while seeking condonation of delay. Reliance was placed on decisions of the Supreme Court concerning the requirement of bona fide and sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

The Court examined the explanation furnished for the delay and recorded that "In the present case, the explanation that the delay occurred due to mandatory governmental procedure of obtaining administrative approval from higher authorities does not inspire confidence and fails to constitute a sufficient cause in the eyes of law...It emerges that despite the Superintendent of Archaeology having advised compliance with the judgment and release of compensation to the landowners, the present appeal has been filed along with an application for condonation of delay, that too without offering any sufficient explanation.”

The Court observed that “despite the fact that valuable lands were acquired by the applicant authority more than 20 years ago, the claimants have been deprived of receiving reasonable compensation till date”. It further recorded that the applicant authority had participated in execution proceedings and had repeatedly sought adjournments while assuring deposit of the awarded amount.

Referring to the conduct of the applicant, the Court stated that “no effective steps were taken by the applicant–authority to deposit the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court, except repeatedly seeking adjournments”. The issuance of an attachment warrant and subsequent assurances given by the authority were also taken into account.

The Court rejected the plea that no prejudice would be caused by condoning the delay, observing that “the concept of rendering substantial justice does not mean causing prejudice to the opposite party”. It further recorded that “the applicant has failed to demonstrate that it was reasonably diligent in prosecuting the matter”.

Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court stated that “any event or circumstance arising after the expiry of limitation cannot constitute a sufficient cause”. It further observed that the explanation based on mandatory governmental procedures “does not inspire confidence and fails to constitute a sufficient cause in the eyes of law”.

Also Read: Trial Court, Not Passport Authority, Decides Accused Facing Criminal Proceedings Has Right To Travel Abroad; Gujarat High Court Allows Plea And Orders Passport Issuance

The Court directed that “The application is rejected with costs of ₹1,00,000/- collectively. The said costs shall be recovered from the erring officer(s) responsible for such suppression and lapse. The costs shall be deposited within a period of three weeks before this Court and shall be remitted to the learned Executing Court, which shall disburse the same in favour of the original claimants after due verification”.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Applicant: Mr. Ankit Shah, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Jigneshkumar M. Nayak, Advocate, Ms. Himani Shah, Assistant Government Pleader

Case Title: SUPERINTENDING ARCHAEOLOGIST v/s HIRABHAI LAXMANBHAI SINCE DECD. THORUGH HEIR & ORS.
Neutral Citation: 2026: GUJHC:3838
Case Number: R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5657 of 2025 In F/FIRST APPEAL/33155/2025
Bench: Justice M. K. Thakker