Allahabad High Court
Jamil And 9 Others vs State Of U P And 2 Others on 19 February, 2021
Bench: Sanjay Yadav, Jayant Banerji
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5981 of 2021
Petitioner :- Jamil And 9 Others
Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vivek Saran
With
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5988 of 2021
Petitioner :- Maha Singh
Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vivek Saran
With
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5997 of 2021
Petitioner :- Zila Singh (Deceased) And 21 Others
Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vivek Saran
With
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5998 of 2021
Petitioner :- Dhani Ram (Deceased) And 14 Others
Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vivek Saran
Hon'ble Sanjay Yadav,J.
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Sri Manoj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appears on behalf of petitioners.
Sri Vivek Saran, learned counsel appears on behalf of respondents no.2 & 3.
This order shall lead to final disposal of Writ-C No.5981 of 2021, Writ-C No.5988 of 2021, Writ-C No.5997 of 2021 and Writ-C No.5998 of 2021.
Petitioners in these writ petitions seek direction to respondents to extend the benefit of judgment dated 19.07.2019 passed in First Appeal No.827 of 2000.
The relevant facts briefly are that various tract of land of petitioners situated in Village Shahibabad, Arthala, Jhandapur, Makanpur Prahladgari, Mohiuddinpur Kanwani Tehsil Dadari, District Ghaziabad were acquired vide Notification dated 26.06.1982 issued by the State Government under Section 4 (1) of Land Acquisition Act, 2013. That Notification under Section 6 (1) of the Act was issued on 28.02.1987 and Award was passed on 27.02.1989. Aggrieved, respective petitioners sought Reference under Section 18 of the Act whereby the Reference Court determined the market value at Rs.75 per sq. meter. The petitioners preferred appeal under Section 54 of Act whereon the compensation was enhanced to Rs.120 per sq. meter by judgment decree dated 03.11.2016. Being satisfied each of the petitioners allowed the same to attain finality and received the Award.
That there were some other land oustees whose land was acquired were not satisfied with the amount of compensation enhanced in an appeal under Section 54 of the Act which led them to challenge it in Reference Court forming subject matter of SLP (Civil) No.28776-28777 of 2016 : Civil Appeal No.18634-18635 of 2017 which was disposed of on 09.12.207 whereby while setting aside the order passed in respective appeals, not of the petitioners, the matter were remanded. On remand fresh orders were passed on 19.07.2019 directing for enhanced amount of compensation Rs.297 per square yard.
It is this judgment decree which the petitioners seek implementation.
Evidently the orders passed in Reference, in Appeals and in the SLP were in Personam. The petitioners being satisfied with the enhanced compensation awarded vide judgment and Decree dated 03.11.2016 are bound by it as the same has been allowed to attain finality. Though a reliance is placed on the decision in Gian Chand and Others Vs. Union of India (2007) 15 SCC 641; however, as borne out from paragraph 5 of the judgment that it was not a case of having accepted an enhanced compensation, the awardee can claim further enhancement on the basis of some other determination.
In Baljeet Singh (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2019) 15 SCC 33 it is held:
"7. The matter requires examination from another aspect, viz. laches and delay. It is a very recognised principle of jurisprudence that a right not exercised for a long time is non-existent. Even when there is no limitation period prescribed by any statute relating to certain proceedings, in such cases, courts have coined the doctrine of laches and delay as well as doctrine of acquiescence and non-suited the litigants who approached the court belatedly without any justifiable explanation for bringing the action after unreasonable delay. In those cases, where the period of limitation is prescribed within which the action is to be brought before the court, if the action is not brought within that prescribed period, the aggrieved party loses remedy and cannot enforce his legal right after the period of limitation is over, however, subject to the prayer for condonation of delay and if there is a justifiable explanation for bringing the action after the prescribed period of limitation is over and sufficient cause is shown, the court may condone the delay. Therefore, in a case where the period of limitation is prescribed and the action is not brought within the period of limitation and subsequently proceedings are initiated after the period of limitation along with the prayer for condonation of delay, in that case, the applicant has to make out a sufficient cause and justify the cause for delay with a proper explanation. It is not that in each and every case despite the sufficient cause is not shown and the delay is not properly explained, the court may condone the delay. To make out a case for condonation of delay, the applicant has to make out a sufficient cause/reason which prevented him in initiating the proceedings within the period of limitation. Otherwise, he will be accused of gross negligence. If the aggrieved party does not initiate the proceedings within the period of limitation without any sufficient cause, he can be denied the relief on the ground of unexplained laches and delay and on the presumption that such person has waived his right or acquiesced with the order. These principles are based on the principles relatable to sound public policy that if a person does not exercise his right for a long time then such right is non-existent.
8. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decisions of this Court in Market Committee v. Krishan Murari, (1996) 1 SCC 311, Dhiraj Singh v. State of Haryana, (2004) 14 SCC : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 236; and K. Subbarayudu v. LAO, (2017) 12 SCC 840 : (2017) 5 SCC (Civ) 378, relied upon by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners is concerned, having gone through the said decisions, we are of the opinion that none of the said decisions shall be applicable to the facts of the case on hand and/or the said decisions shall be of any assistance to the petitioners. First of all, in the relied upon cases, there was no such inordinate delay of approximately 21 years. In the relied upon cases, this Court was satisfied on the sufficient cause for delay. In the relied upon cases, parity was claimed with respect to the land acquired under the very notification and it was pointed out that due to poverty and financial difficulty some of the land owners whose land was acquired under the same notification could not prefer the appeals earlier and thereafter they preferred the appeals subsequently and claimed parity of compensation on a par with the land acquired under the same notification. It is also required to be noted that as such in none of the aforesaid decisions, this Court had dealt with and/or considered the adverse impact/effect on the State/acquiring body if after inordinate delay/laches the State/acquiring body is directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation.
In view whereof since no relief can be granted. Petitions fail and are dismissed. No costs.
Order Date :- 19.2.2021
N Tiwari
(Jayant Banerji, J.) (Sanjay Yadav, J.)
