- (1.) THIS petition is directed against order dated 18.3.2005 of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court dismissing the special civil application filed by the petitioners for re-grant of their land, which had been acquired in 1969 for construction of houses under the Land Accomplishment and Development Scheme of the Gujarat Housing Board. The petitioners have also filed applications for condonation of 1870 days ' delay in filing the special leave petition and 874 days ' delay in refiling the special leave petition.
(2.) WE have heard Shri K.G. Bhagat, learned Counsel for the petitioners and carefully perused the record. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of the application for condonation of delay, the petitioners have given the following explanation: "4. That the Petitioners have been represented in these proceedings by Ratibhai C. Patel, their power of Attorney holder who has been suffering from Ischaemic heart disease, and had been medically advised to do his activities on a low profile. Therefore, certain delay has occasioned in filing this Special Leave Petition even after becoming aware of the fact that the lands have not been utilized for the original or the altered alleged public purposes. A copy of the Medical Certificate dated 10.7.2010 is annexed as ANNEXURE - P/7 (pages 94-97). 5. That not only that after the lands were transferred to LIC by Housing Board by a deed on 20.12.78, no construction was made till the petition was disposed of on 18.3.2005 but even after recording statement of the advocate for LIC that land in question are going to be utilised within a short period, petitioners found after collecting necessary documents separately produced that no construction is made till date, they have immediately rushed to this Hon 'ble Court by filing the present petition that by their own acts, the acquisition proceedings have not only failed but frustrated also. Therefore there is as such, no delay. However, no prudent man would deliberately file the petition, late otherwise he would be the only person to lose in the matter only on the ground of delay. On the contrary, the highest that can happen is that a meritorious case would be decided on merits rather than disposing it of on the ground of delay. The delay, if any was and is dependent on the statement made by learned advocate for the LIC. Therefore as long as the said statement recorded by the Hon 'ble High Court is continued, there is no delay. However since that statement itself has frustrated the acquisition proceedings in law, the petitioners having lost patience, have immediately filed the present petition without any further delay. Therefore even if it is considered that there is some delay, the same may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice over and above the fact that petitioners have a very good case to succeed more particularly after the petition is disposed of on the statement made by learned advocate for the LIC. " In our view, the aforesaid explanation is wholly unsatisfactory and there is no ground for exercise of power by this Court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of more than five years ' delay in filing the special leave petition and more than two years ' delay in refiling the special leave petition.
(3.) EVEN on merits, we are also satisfied that the special civil application filed by the petitioners in 1997 for directing the respondents to release the land, which as mentioned above, was acquired in 1969-1971 was wholly misconceived and the High Court rightly declined to entertain the same.;