Allahabad High Court
Grisham Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P.Through ... on 1 August, 2019
Bench: Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 1
Case :- LAND ACQUISITION No. - 26196 of 2017
Petitioner :- Grisham Kumar Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Secy.Irrigation Civil Sectt.Lko. & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ranvijay Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal,J.
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard Shri Ranvijay Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anand Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
By this writ petition, the petitioner is praying for quashment of the order dated 02.06.2017 passed by the respondent no.3 whereby the application of the petitioner for grant of compensation in respect of Gata No.1228 Gha, area 0.514 hectare situated at village Khedi, Pargana Barausa, Tehsil Sadar, District Sultanpur has been rejected on the ground of delay and latches, relying on the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Syed Maqbool Ali Vs. State of U.P.,[Civil Appeal Nos.2913 and 2914 of 2011].
The brief facts of the case are that the Gata No.1228 Gha, area 0.514 hectare situated at village Khedi was acquired in the year 1965 Gata No.1417 for the purpose of construction of Sultanpur Samanantar Shaka. As per revenue record, the land is recorded in the name of Canal. The construction of second Canal was completed in the year 1980. In the year 2017, the petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming compensation as per the Circle Rate of 2017.
As per counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, the land in question has acquired around 40-45 years back for construction of Canal. The work of construction of Canal was completed in 1980. It is also stated that the petitioner became major way back in the year 1987. The instant writ petition was filed in the year 2017. The delay of 40-45 years has not been properly explained. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Maqbool Ali Vs. State of U.P. (supra), now no order can be passed for directing the respondents to pay compensation. It is submitted that the construction of Canal was completed in 2016 and therefore he filed the writ petition on 26.10.2017 immediately and the delay has been properly explained in para-15 of the writ petition, which reads as under:-
"That the second canal was not made a day or a month but was continuously about 40 years and there is no delay in part of petitioner however the petitioner was minor when construction of the second canal was started."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn our attention towards para-9 and 10 of the acquisition of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Dhanwanti Devi and others reported in 1996 (6) SCC page 44 and prayed for quashment of the impugned order. The law on the subject is well settled by the Apex Court in the case of Syed Maqbool Ali Vs. State of U.P. (supra). Para-6 of the judgment reads as under:-
"6. But that does not mean that the delay should be ignored or appellant should be given relief. In such matters, the person aggrieved should approach the High Court diligently. If the writ petition is belated, unless there is good and satisfactory explanation for the delay, the petition will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. Further the High Court should be satisfied that the case warrants the exercise of the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India, and that the matter is one where the alternative remedy of suit is not appropriate. For example, if the person aggrieved and the State are owners of adjoining lands and he claims that the State has encroached over a part of his land, or if there is a simple boundary dispute, the remedy will lie only in a civil suit, as the dispute does not relate to any highhanded, arbitrary or unreasonable action of the officers of the State and there is a need to examine disputed questions relating to title, extent and actual possession. But where the person aggrieved establishes that the State had highhandedly taken over his land without recourse to acquisition or deprived him of his property without authority of law, the landholder may seek his remedy in a writ petition. When a writ petitioner makes out a case for invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court would not relegate him to the alternative remedy of a civil court, merely because the matter may involve an incidental examination of disputed questions of facts. The question that will ultimately weigh with the High Court is this : Whether the person is seeking remedy in a matter which is primarily a civil dispute to be decided by a civil court, or whether the matter relates to a dispute having a public law element or violation of any fundamental right or to any arbitrary and high-handed action. (See the decisions of this court in ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd - 2004(3) SCC 553 and Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. v. Vardan Linkers - 2008(12) SCC 500]."
On due consideration of the aforesaid, except para-15 of the writ petition there is no averment regarding the delay of 45 years, considering the aforesaid, now at this stage we cannot set aside the impugned order and direct the respondents to pay compensation over the land in question that too at the circle rate of Rs.2000/-.
The writ petition filed by the petitioner has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
.
(Jaspreet Singh, J) (Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, J)
Order Date :- 1.8.2019
ank
