The Gujarat High Court dismissed all applications seeking condonation of 718 days’ delay in filing first appeals by the Superintending Archaeologist. It imposed collective costs of Rs. 1,00,000, to be recovered from erring officers, for suppressing material facts and delaying execution.
The Superintending Archaeologist (Archaeological Survey of India) sought condonation of 718 days’ delay in filing first appeals against a common judgment and award dated 31 July 2023 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bhachau, Kutch, and allied land acquisition reference cases concerning lands at Dholavira.
The land in question had been acquired for archaeological/tourism purposes over twenty years earlier, yet landowners were still awaiting reasonable compensation. While execution proceeded, the Superintendent of Archaeology corresponded with higher authorities and obtained a legal opinion from a Central Government Counsel advising that the case was not fit for appeal and recommending release of compensation. Instead of complying, higher authorities chose to pursue a belated appeal and sought to justify the 718-day delay solely on the ground of internal file movement and approvals.
ASI argued that, as a government department, it needed time to follow “mandatory procedures”, including multilayered scrutiny and approval by Director (Monuments) and the Director General, ASI. Landowners’ counsel pointed out suppression of execution history, repeated broken assurances to deposit compensation, and the ignored legal opinion advising against appeal, arguing that the appeals were a tactic to stall payment. They relied on precedents to contend that such vague administrative reasons are not “sufficient cause”.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice M.K. Thakker found that ASI’s reasons did not explain why no steps were taken within limitation, and that suppression of the execution proceedings and prior legal opinion undermined bona fides. It also noted that landowners had already been deprived of compensation for over two decades.
The Court rejected the condonation applications, holding that ASI failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence or sufficient cause for the 718-day delay, and that the attempt to appeal at this stage, after repeated non-compliance in execution, was mala fide. It declined to examine the merits of the appeals once delay was not satisfactorily explained.
The Court imposed Rs. 1,00,000 as collective costs, directing that this sum be recovered from the responsible officers and deposited before the High Court within three weeks. The amount is to be remitted to the Executing Court for disbursal to the original claimants after verification.
Cases relied on:
1. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary, (2025) 2 GLR 987
2. Thirunagalingam v. Lingeswaran and Another, (2025) 6 SCR 253
Appearances:
Mr Ankit Shah for the Applicant(s) No. 1
Ms Himani Shah, Asst. Government Pleader for the Respondent(s) No. 2
Jigneshkumar M Nayak for the Respondent(s) No. 1.1
