Telangana High Court
Union Of India vs Fasahatunnisa Begum , Shamshusinnisa ... on 22 February, 2024
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
WRIT APPEAL No.2002 OF 2005
JUDGMENT:
(per the Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti) Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India represents the appellant-Union of India.
Mr. A. Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel appears for Ms. Rubaina S. Khatoon, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and respondent Nos.6 to 20.
Mr. P. Bhavana Rao, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for respondent Nos.4 and 5.
2. This intra court appeal emanates from an order dated 29.11.2004 passed by a learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh by which W.P.No.10138 of 1992 preferred by respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein has been disposed of with a direction to the appellant and respondents No.4 and 5 to initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 CJ & JAK, J W.A.No.2002 OF 2005 2 (for short, 'the Act') for acquisition of the lands admeasuring Acs.3.35 guntas in Survey No.39 and Acs.4.13 guntas in Survey No.40 (briefly 'the subject land' hereinafter) situated at Kanchanbagh Village, Charminar Mandal, Hyderabad.
3. Brief facts:
A notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 30.01.1964. Thereafter, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 05.02.1964. An enquiry was held under Section 5A of the Act, which culminated into award dated 11.03.1965, by which land admeasuring Acs.341.00 guntas was acquired for the purpose of establishment of Defence Laboratories, Defence Research Development Laboratory (DRDL) and Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory (DMRL). A photocopy of the award dated 11.03.1965 along with compensation allowed for the land to an extent Acs.341.00 guntas is placed on record for perusal of this Court.
CJ & JAK, J W.A.No.2002 OF 2005 3 3.1 The respondents No.1 to 3 filed the aforesaid writ petition in the year 1992 i.e., after a period of 27 years from the date of passing of the award seeking a direction to the appellant and respondents No.4 and 5 to initiate action for acquisition of the subject land on the ground that the same has not been acquired and the appellant is in unauthorized possession of the same.
3.2 The learned Single Judge, by an order dated 29.11.2004, has allowed the writ petition. Assailing the said order, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 3.3 A Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated 07.11.2005, while directing the parties to maintain status quo, issued the following direction:
"In the meantime, the Government shall submit a report as to how much land they acquired and how much land actually they took possession of in the acquired land."
3.4 The District Collector, Hyderabad, filed the additional counter-affidavit in which it was categorically stated that the CJ & JAK, J W.A.No.2002 OF 2005 4 Defence Labs are not in possession of any excess land. The District Collector has stated specifically in his additional counter affidavit that the Defence Labs are in possession and enjoyment of actual extent of land which was acquired pursuant to the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act for which an award was passed and compensation was paid 36 years back. The Defence Labs are not in possession of land over and above the lands acquired.
3.5. It is further stated in the additional counter affidavit by the District Collector that the Special Deputy Collector (LA), Industries, was not arrayed as a party to the writ petition, but, he filed a counter affidavit on the basis of incorrect information furnished and that the Special Deputy Collector (LA) Industries in his counter had stated that the Defence Organization was in possession of excess land to an extent of Acs.3.33 guntas in Survey Nos.39 and 40 of Kanchanbagh. It is stated in the counter affidavit of the District Collector that the Surveyor had included lands, which were not acquired and not occupied by the Defence Organization and further stated CJ & JAK, J W.A.No.2002 OF 2005 5 that there is reason to believe that there was some collusion and fraud at the lower levels. These statements are culled out from the additional counter affidavit of the District Collector, Hyderabad, filed on record.
3.6 It is also stated in the additional counter affidavit of the District Collector that the entire topography of the area is changed and Survey No.39 was sub-divided into Survey No.39/1 which is situated beyond the compound wall. This was neither notified nor acquired and sub-division Survey No.39/2 for the land to an extent of Acs.18.35 guntas was the land notified and acquired. Similarly, Survey No.40 was sub-divided into Survey Nos.40/1 and 40/2. Sub-division Survey No.40/2 for the land to an extent of Acs.20.17 guntas alone was notified and acquired. The land in the sub-division No.40/1 beyond the compound wall of Defence Laboratory was neither notified nor acquired. The land beyond the compound wall of Defence Labs is not in the occupation of Defence Labs. The District Collector has stated that the additional counter affidavit is filed to bring the correct and factual position of the CJ & JAK, J W.A.No.2002 OF 2005 6 case to the notice of the Hon'ble Court. This Court has taken note of the statements made in additional counter affidavit filed by none other than the District Collector, who candidly placed the facts on record.
3.7. A report dated 27.02.2023 of Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad, is placed before the Court during the proceedings in writ appeal, wherein it is stated that the appellant is in possession of the land, not covered under the acquisition notification, to an extent of Ac.0.11 guntas in Survey No.39 and Ac.1.39 guntas in Survey No.40. 3.8. The learned Single Judge in his order held that there is no justification on behalf of the respondents to deny or deprive the writ petitioners the relief as claimed by them. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the Union of India has filed the present writ appeal.
4. It is submitted by the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the Union of India that the claims are made after a long lapse of acquisition on the basis CJ & JAK, J W.A.No.2002 OF 2005 7 of presumptions without there being any title deeds nor by producing any records to prove or support the claim of excess land. It is further submitted that an award dated 11.03.1965 was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer allowing the compensation for the land acquired. The possession of land was taken on 23.02.1964. It is pointed out that by office letter in Lr.No.L/984/89, dated 21.01.1991, the Defence Estate Officer (DEO), A.P., Circle, Secunderabad, was requested to send the requisition for the excess area of Acs.3.33 guntas which the Defence Authorities are in excess possession of Survey Nos.39 and 40 of Kanchanbagh. It is further pointed out that the DEO in his letter dated 11.02.1991 has informed that the area for which requisition was given was handed over to them and they are not in possession of excess land and that there might be clerical/calculation mistake occurred in computing the area which has to be verified again. The statement made by the Defence Authorities was categorical and that there is no excess land. He further submitted that he has filed objection to the survey report prepared by the Deputy CJ & JAK, J W.A.No.2002 OF 2005 8 Director, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad. It is pointed out that the aforesaid survey has been conducted behind the back of the officers of the appellant.
4.1 It is contended by learned Deputy Solicitor General of India that the District Collector in his additional counter affidavit has categorically stated that the Defence Labs are not in possession of over and above the lands acquired for it and compensation was paid 26 years back. It is further contended that even assuming for a moment that the Defence Labs are in possession of any excess lands, the principle of adverse possession is attracted and that long delay of 36 years disentitles the writ petitioners any relief, much less relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petitioners are guilty of laches. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance is placed on Babu Singh and Others v. Union of India and Others 1 and Haryana State Handloom & 1 (1981) 3 SCC 628 CJ & JAK, J W.A.No.2002 OF 2005 9 Handicrafts Corporation Limited and Another v. Jain School Society 2.
5. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the unofficial respondents that long after conclusion of proceedings, a representation and a legal notice was sent by unofficial respondents. It is pointed out that pursuant to the complaint, the official respondents initiated steps to measure the entire land and demarcated the actual land notified to be acquired, which is evident by proceedings No.J1/1507/75, dated 22.12.1981. It is contended that as the official respondents have been postponing the measurement of the land, the unofficial respondents submitted another representation dated 01.02.1982.
5.1 It is submitted that in the counter affidavits, different stands have been taken by the authorities and as per report of Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records dated 20.03.2023, there is excess land to an extent of Ac.0.11 guntas in Survey 2 (2003) 12 SCC 538 CJ & JAK, J W.A.No.2002 OF 2005 10 No.39 and Ac.1.39 guntas in Survey No.40, which is in possession of Defence Labs. It is urged that respondent authorities are liable to pay compensation. It is submitted that the judgments relied on by the learned Deputy Solicitor General are not applicable to the facts of the case as Urgency Clause was invoked in the said judgments. 5.2. It is contended that the unofficial respondents are entitled to an appropriate writ, direction or order for violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the unofficial respondents have been deprived of the right to property without authority of law and hence, they are entitled to compensation for the excess land acquired. For the said propositions, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court and other High Courts in Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others 3, Dolby Builders Private Limited and Another v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai 3 (1982) 1 SCC 39 : 1982 SCC (Crl) 53 CJ & JAK, J W.A.No.2002 OF 2005 11 and Others 4 and Sharif Masih v. Punjab and Haryana High Court 5.
6. It is submitted by learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5 that as per the land acquisition record, there is no excess land and the Defence Labs are not in possession of excess land. The survey report dated 20.03.2023 submitted by the Deputy Director of Survey and Land Records indicates that the there is an excess land in possession of the Defence Labs. It is also submitted that as per the land acquisition record, there is no excess land.
7. We have considered submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. It is not in dispute that large extents of land have been acquired for the purpose of establishment of Defence Labs in Kanchanbagh area of Hyderabad in the year 1965. It is evident from record that award was passed in the year 1965 for the land to an extent of 4 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2110 5 (2007) 15 SCC 753 CJ & JAK, J W.A.No.2002 OF 2005 12 Acs.341.00 and compensation was paid. The unofficial respondents herein state that they have made representations for survey of land in the year 1981 to state authorities and the state authorities have replied to the said representations that excess land has been acquired.
8. On a perusal of the entire record, affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the material papers annexed and the report of authorities (filed during the course of proceedings of writ appeal), it is noticed that except stating in the writ affidavit that the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 (writ petitioners) are the owners of property, neither a single document nor any material paper has been filed to substantiate the claim that they are the owners of land for which compensation is being claimed. On a perusal of the order of learned Single Judge, it is noticed that there is no reference with respect to the title or ownership of the property of the writ petitioners.
9. This Court is conscious of the fact that the District Collector has filed an additional counter affidavit stating that CJ & JAK, J W.A.No.2002 OF 2005 13 the Surveyor had included lands, which were not acquired and not occupied by the Defence Organization and it was further stated in the additional counter affidavit that there is reason to believe that there was some collusion and fraud at the lower levels. The District Collector has further stated in his additional counter affidavit that the same is filed to bring the correct and factual position of the case to the notice of the Hon'ble Court. The District Collector has been very candid in placing the facts on record.
10. It is pertinent to take note of the fact that the unofficial respondents (writ petitioners) were aware of the land acquisition proceedings and the award passed and claiming to be owners, steps should have been initiated for appropriate legal remedies immediately. They waited for the land acquisition proceedings to be completed and award to be passed and thereafter filed a writ petition after a long delay of 26/27 years. Not a word of explanation is offered for the inordinate delay, except stating that they have been CJ & JAK, J W.A.No.2002 OF 2005 14 pursuing by making representations (in year 1981) before the state authorities for survey etc.
11. The Supreme Court in a catena of decisions held that the writ Court should refuse to exercise its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters. The doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ Court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The Court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional Court, it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens, but simultaneously it has to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the Court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize, CJ & JAK, J W.A.No.2002 OF 2005 15 whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant and law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. It is well settled that power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and the High Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing a petition and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
12. Mere filing of representations before the authorities and pursuing the same cannot be sufficient explanation for delay in approaching the writ Court for grant of relief. We are of the considered opinion that the unofficial respondents did not pursue a legal remedy and kept on submitting representations which is not a remedy in law. The claims of the unofficial respondents are highly belated and stale. The CJ & JAK, J W.A.No.2002 OF 2005 16 writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
13. We have no hesitation in holding that the writ petitioners have approached this Court after a long, inordinate, unexplained delay of 27 years and are guilty of delay and laches. The writ petitioners have nowhere stated any satisfactory reasons whatsoever for such delay. The learned Single Judge has grossly erred in not considering the aspect of delay and laches and in entertaining the claim of the writ petitioners.
14. The inordinate unexplained delay of 26/27 years cannot be lost sight of. In addition, whether appellant is in possession of excess land is a question of fact. In view of the rival stand taken by parties, the same is a disputed question of fact. On this ground also, no relief can be granted to the unofficial respondents in this writ appeal.
CJ & JAK, J W.A.No.2002 OF 2005 17
15. For all the foregoing reasons, the writ appeal deserves to be allowed and same is accordingly allowed. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ ___________________________ ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J Date:22.02.2024 KH CJ & JAK, J W.A.No.2002 OF 2005 18 THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI WRIT APPEAL No.2002 OF 2005 Date:22.02.2024 KH