Allahabad High Court
Hari Shankar & Another vs State Of U.P. & 2 Others on 26 May, 2014
Bench: Vineet Saran, Naheed Ara Moonis
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 28847 of 2014
Petitioner :- Hari Shankar & Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Dubey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,R.P. Singh
Hon'ble Vineet Saran,J.
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh has produced before us an order dated 19.2.2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 10773 of 2014, which is based on identical facts. The said order is extracted below:
"Heard Shri Pankaj Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ramendra Pratap Singh for the respondent no. 4.
By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:
"i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI, calling the records and quashing the impugned notification certiorari calling for the record and quashing the impugned notification no.6803/77-4-06-301N.-06 dated 31.08.2007 under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act and impugned notification no.1778/77-3-08-301N-08 dated 04.07.2008 under section 6 of Land Acquisition Act in respect of petitioner land comprising of Plot Nos.199 area 1.3380 Hect. and 473 area 1.0770 Hect. of the revenue village Itehra, Pargana Dadri, Tehsil Dadri, Disrict Gautam Budh Nagar and the land of the petitioners return back, which was acquired for Public Purpose and transferred to the private builders.
ii) To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to take any action and not to make any construction on the land comprising of petitioner of the land comprising of Plot Nos.199 area 1.3380 Hect. and 473 area 1.0770 Hect. of the revenue village Itehra, Pargana Dadri, Tehsil Dadri, Disrict Gautam Budh Nagar.
iii) To issue any other order of direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
Shri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection regarding the entertainability of the writ petition. He submits that the writ petition has been filed after more than 6 years from the date of declaration issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and it is highly bared by laches. He submits that even the Full Bench judgment in Gajraj & Ors Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, which decided the bunch of writ petitions was delivered on 21/10/2011, and more than 2 years have elapsed from the judgment of the Full Bench in Gajraj's case (supra) which decided the bunch of writ petitions including the writ petition relating to Villate Itehra. In the entire writ petition, the petitioner has not even in any paragraph has given any explanation for delay and laches in approaching the Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land use of the Village Itehra was changed in the year 2010.
Be as it may, according to the petitioner, even if the land use was changed in the year 2010, the cause of action arose to the petitioner in the year 2010, then why the petitioner waited for more than three years and thereafter the delay has not been explained. The Apex Court in Swaika Properties (P) Ltd. and another Vs. State of Rajasthan and others reported in (2008) 4 SCC 695, has held that writ petition challenging the land acquisitioin proceedings with delay and laches be not entertained. The Apex Court in Aflatoon & Ors Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors, (1975) 4 SCC 285, has laid down following in paragraph 11 which is quoted below:
"11. There was apparently no reason why the writ petitioners should have waited till 1972 to come to this Court for challenging the validity of the notification issued in 1959 on the ground that the particulars of the public purpose were not specified. A valid notification under Section 4 is a sine qua non for initiation of proceedings for acquisition of property. To have sat on the fence and allowed the Government to complete the acquisition proceedings on the basis that the notification under Section 4 and the declaration under Section 6 were valid and then to attack the notification on grounds which were available to them at the time when the notification was published would be putting a premium on dilatory tactics. The writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches and delay on the part of the petitioners (see Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi and Rabindranath Bose v. Union of India)."
In the land acquisition proceedings delay plays an important role. Petitioner cannot be allowed to sit on the fence and wait for completion of the land acquisition proceedings and thereafter come to the court. We find that there is absolutely no explanation of laches in approaching the Court. The writ petition being barred by laches is dismissed."
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that this writ petition can also be disposed of in the same terms.
Sri Pankaj Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners states that on identical facts another Writ Petition No. 48753 of 2011 which relates to same village and notification has been disposed of by order dated 29.4.2014 whereby the benefit of the Full Bench decision in the case of Gajraj Vs. State of U.P. 2011 (11) ADJ 1. He has thus contended that in this writ petition also same benefit be given.
Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent has submitted that the said writ petition was filed in the year 2011 before the judgment in the Gajraj case had not been pronounced. The petitioners in that case have thus been granted the benefit of the Full Bench decision. In the present case the petitioners have come up after more than 11 years of the issuance of the notifications and after nearly three years of the passing of the judgment in the Gajraj case. No explanation whatsoever for approaching this Court after such a long time has been given in the writ petition.
Parity with any judgment cannot be given for all times to come. A difference has to be carved out amongst the persons who are alive of their rights and have been agitating them by filing writ petitions or initiating other proceedings before the competent authorities/Courts, and such persons who keep quiet all along and thereafter want to be equated with the persons who have succeeded after agitating their claim. The same benefit which is given to a person who is alive of his rights cannot be given to those who sleep over their rights.
We are thus of the view that on the grounds of laches, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.5.2014
p.s.
(Naheed Ara Moonis, J.) (Vineet Saran, J.)
