Shiv Charan vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2003 Latest Caselaw 1325 Del

ORDER

1. Petitioner Shiv Charan has approached this Court in February, 2002, after he was dispossessed somewhere in 1982-83, for claiming the following reliefs :

"1. A writ of certiorari or any other writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of the case, and peruse the same.

2. A writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the action of respondents in illegally taking possession of land of the petitioner admeasuring 2 bighas 14 biswas comprised in Khasra No. 605/2 situated in village Aali, New Delhi.

3. A writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to either forthwith give back possession of the land in question to the petitioner along with damages at the rate of Rs. 80,000 /- per bigha per year or acquire the same under the Land Acquisition Act and pay proper compensation for the same to the petitioner within a time-bound frame."

2. There is dispute with regard to the date when possession was taken. Whether it was taken in 1982-83, or in 1992-93. Suffice it to say that legal notice Annexure P-5, dated 21.7.1994 (at page 25 of paperbook) of the petitioner's Counsel itself makes it very clear that possession was taken much before the Award No. 9/ 94/1995 and, therefore, it is very clear that the petitioner has approached this Court after a long delay.

3. On this ground alone, we would not have entertained the petition and would have rejected it on the ground of delay and laches. However, in the instant case, we have entertained the petition to see that complete justice is done to the parties while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. Vast area of land came to be acquired by Land Acquisition Collector for Badarpur Thermal Power Station. Lands were also handed over to the Power Station by irrigation department. So far as the land bearing Khasra No. 605 is concerned, it is surrounded by various plots bearing different Khasra numbers all of which are in possession of respondent-Power Station. It is contended by the petitioner that there was a notification for acquisition of land, which includes various Khasra numbers. It is not in dispute before the Court that Khasra number situated round-about the petitioner's land have been acquired. It is also clear that so far as the petitioner is concerned, land bearing Khasra No. 605/2002 was not acquired. Land bearing Khasra No. 406/2/1, admeasuring 17 biswas was acquired for which Award No. 64/82-83 came to be made and for which compensation has been paid which is also not disputed. There is affidavit of Atul Kumar, Executive Engineer, and in para 2 he has pointed out as under :

"2. That the above mentioned matter pertains to Khasra No. 605, Village Aali, New Delhi. The entire details have not been given by the petitioner including the details of the exact Khasra Nos. verification of records of the deponent shows that Khasra No. 605 consists of 4 bighas 16 biswas, Khasra No. 605/1, measuring 1 bigha 3 biswas has been acquired vide Award No. 45 of 1969-70. 19 biswas out of Khasra No. 605/2/1 was acquired vide Award No. 64 of 1982-83. The said award does not mention Khasra No. 605/2/2 measuring 2 bighas 14 biswas."

Thus, it is clear that 2 bighas and 14 biswas of land is not referred in the award and, therefore, according to the petitioner, he being the owner of land, he cannot be asked to suffer and the State cannot acquire the land without due process of law. Learned Counsel submitted that he must be put in possession of the land by the respondent who acquired it. The petitioner had been sleeping over his rights and has not bothered to approach the Court in time. About the delay, the Apex Court has pointed in the case of Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig, , :

"14.......It is now a well settled principle of law and we need not dilate on this score to the effect that while no period of limitation is fixed but in the normal course of events, the period the party is required for filing a civil proceeding ought to be the guiding factor. While it is true that this extraordinary jurisdiction is available to mitigate the sufferings of the people in general but it is not out of place to mention that this extraordinary jurisdiction has been conferred on to the law Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution on a very sound and equitable principle. Hence, the equitable doctrine, namely, 'delay defeats equity' has its fullest application in the matter of grant of relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The discretionary relief can be had provided one has not by his act or conduct given a go-bye to his rights. Equity favors a vigilant rather than an indolent litigant and this being the basic tenet of law, the question of grant of an order as has been passed in the matter as regards restoration of possession upon cancellation of the notification does not and cannot arise."

5. At the same time, we are of the opinion that land is in possession of Thermal Power Station and now it is not possible to direct the Thermal Power Station to hand over possession of land. When the lands were acquired what was the prevailing price has been determined by awards. If the petitioner has not bothered for his land, then is it proper for him to say now that proceedings should be initiated ? In view of the fact that the poor agriculturist lost the precious land without adequate compensation, but at the same time, as he was not taking action in time, therefore, to do justice, we are exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and direct the respondent to pay amount of compensation, as determined. He is also entitled to interest from the date of petition till the amount is paid. In 1994, he addressed a letter to Land Acquisition Collector and he was informed immediately that the lands were not acquired, but he has not taken any action in this regard. If he would have approached the Court after he was dispossessed, the matter would have been different and even if he had approached after information was conveyed that land was not acquired, the matter would have stood on a different footing, but for the reasons best known to the petitioner, he has kept mum and, therefore, we deny interest for the interregnum during which he was sleeping over his right. Petition is allowed. The Land Acquisition Collector would calculate the amount within six weeks and shall send the information to respondent No. 2 who shall make the payment within two weeks thereafter.