"Special Status’" No Excuse for 718-Day Delay: Gujarat High Court Imposes ₹1 Lakh Costs on ASI in Dholavira Land Case

The bench noted that although the land was acquired over 20 years ago, the affected farmers are yet to receive reasonable compensation, and this delay cannot be justified on the authority’s claimed “special status.” The Court emphasised that government bodies are on the same footing as private litigants and that administrative inefficiency cannot override statutory timelines or prejudice citizens’ rights.

A bench of Justice M.K. Thakker observed, “Considering the grounds urged in support of the application, this Court finds that they are not only insufficient but wholly inadequate and indicative of a negligent and mala fide intent to delay the execution proceedings. Such grounds cannot be accepted merely on the pretext of the so-called special status claimed by the applicant authority. 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”.

“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”, the bench further noted.

Advocate Ankit Shah appeared for the applicant, and Himani Shah, Asst. Government Pleader appeared for the respondent.

The applications were filed by the ASI seeking to challenge a land acquisition award dated 31-07-2023, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bhachau, District Kutch. The applicant authority attributed the delay to internal administrative processes, including movement of files, obtaining legal opinions, and securing approvals from higher authorities in New Delhi.

Opposing the plea, the landowners pointed out that execution proceedings had already been initiated, and that despite repeated assurances given before the executing court to deposit the awarded amount, the authority failed to comply. It was contended that these material facts were deliberately suppressed in the applications seeking condonation of delay.

The High Court observed that the applicant authority was fully aware of the execution proceedings and had sought adjournments on assurances of payment, yet approached the appellate court only after coercive steps were initiated. The explanation offered, centred on internal approvals and procedural formalities, was found to be wholly inadequate and reflective of a negligent and casual approach to litigation.

Relying on settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court, Justice Thakker reiterated that condonation of delay is not a matter of right, and that delay cannot be excused as an act of generosity.

Significantly, the Court also took note of internal correspondence indicating that even the Central Government Counsel had advised against filing the appeal, recommending compliance with the award and release of compensation to the landowners. Despite that fact, the appeal was pursued, reinforcing the conclusion that the litigation was initiated only to delay execution.

Cause Title: Superintending Archaeologist Hirabhai Laxmanbhai Since Decd. Through Heir & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:GUJHC:3838]

Appearance:

Applicant: Ankit Shah, Advocate

Respondent: Himani Shah, Asst. Government Pleader, Jignesh Kumar M Nayak, Advocates