Jharkhand High Court

Kali Charan Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 August, 2022

                                       1


                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             W.P.(C) No.1024 of 2013
                                      ---

1. Kali Charan Mahto

2. Shivlal Mahto

3. Hublal Mahto

4. Jaichand Mahto

5. Kali Turi

6. Chepa Mahto

7. Baijnath Kalindi ........... Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi.

3. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad

4. The Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Dhanbad

5. Sub-divisional Officer, (Law & Order) Dhanbad

6. Managing Director, Mineral Area Development Authority, having its office at Lubi Circular Road, Dhanbad .......... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

---------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rishi Raj Verma, A.C. to S.C.-III

---

05/22.08.2022 This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, wherein, two fold directions have been sought for, i.e.,

(i) to direct the respondents particularly the respondent nos.3 ,4

and 6 to send the records appertaining to acquisition of the land

acquired for the purpose of construction of water treatment plant

within Mouza no.107 of khata no.82 of Patiya village, on the ground

that the land of the petitioners which has been acquired sometime in

the year, 1959, for the purpose of construction of water treatment

plant, is forcefully being sought to be constructed without resorting to

proper mechanism of acquisition, as required to be followed under the

provision of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Act') 1894;

(ii) to direct the respondents to make all arrangements for

payment of compensation in cash and kind to the petitioners on

acquisition of the lands of the petitioners in accordance with law.

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ

petition, required to be enumerated, which reads as under:-

The petitioner no.1, namely, Kalicharan Mahto, claims to have

his Khatiani land situated at Mouza no.107, as per the detail furnished

at paragraph-6 of the petition, which is being reproduced

hereinbelow:-

Khata no.                 Plot no.                     area
82                        1422                         10 decimals
                          1429                         06 decimals
                          2005                         26 decimals
                          2601                         06 decimals
120                       1431                         05 decimals
                          1474                         05 decimals
                          2541                         06 decimals
                          2676                         71 decimals
                          2677                         3.60 decimals
                          1485                         09 decimals
                          1492                         15 decimals
                          1546                         08 decimals
                          1552                         03 decimals
                          1601                         07 decimals
                          1639                         07 decimals
                          1650                         07 decimals
                          Total

The petitioner no.2, namely, Shivlal Mahto, son of Bhirgu

Mahto, claims to have his Khatiani land situated at Mouza no.107, as

per the details furnished at paragraph-7 of the petition, which is being

reproduced hereinbelow:-

Khata No.               Plot nos.               Area
3                       2631                    09 Decimals
                        2632                    95 Decimals
                        2636                    3.37 Decimals
                        2644                    2.62 Decimals
                        Total                   109.99 Decimals

The petitioner no.3, namely, Oblal Mahato, son of Sri Hari Pado

Mahto, claims to have his Khatiani land situated at Mouza no.109, as

per the details furnished at paragraph-8 of the petition, which is being

reproduced hereinbelow:-

Khata no.               Plot no.                Area
Khata no.112            2646                    74 Decimals
                        2647                    08 Decimals
                        Total                   82 Decimals

The petitioner no.4, namely, Jaichand Mahto, son of Sri Bihari

Mahto, claims to have his land situated at Mouza no.107, as per the

details furnished at paragraph-9 of the petition, which is being

reproduced hereinbelow:-

Khata no.               Plot nos.               Area
112                     2585                    95 Decimals
                        2681                    04 Decimals



                       2652                   11 Decimals
                       2649                   04 Decimals
                       2650                   22 Decimals
                       2651                   17 Decimals
                       Total                  153 Decimals
120                    2616                   99 Decimals
                       2662                   2.98 Decimals
                       Total                  101.98 Decimals

The petitioner no.5, namely, Kali Turi, son of Sri Binod Turi,

claims to have his Khatiani land situated at Mouza no.107, as per the

details furnished at paragraph-10 of the petition, which is being

reproduced hereinbelow:-

Khata no.              Plot nos.              Area
79                     2598                   33 Decimals
                       2622                   36 Decimals
                       2623                   06 Decimals
                       2624                   04 Decimals
                       Total                  79 Decimals
3                      1374                   10 Decimals
                       1523                   01 Decimals
                       1398                   21 Decimals
                       1403                   11 Decimals
                       1404                   03 Decimals
                       1405                   04 Decimals
                       Total                  50 Decimals

The petitioner no.6, namely, Chapa Mahto, son of Sri Bhada

Mahto, claims to have his Khatiani land situated at Mouza no.107, as

per the details furnished at paragraph-11 of the petition, which is

being reproduced hereinbelow:-

Khata no.               Plot nos.                Area
66                      2589                     15 Decimals
                        2590                     24 Decimals
                        2633                     04 Decimals
                        2634                     01 Decimals
                        Total                    44 Decimals

The petitioner no.7, namely, Baijnath Dom, son of Sri Nitai Dom,

claims to have his Khatiani land situated at Mouza no.107, as per the

details furnished at paragraph-12 of the petition, which is being

reproduced hereinbelow:-

Khata no.               Plot no.                 Area
5                       2000                     36 Decimals
                        2611                     21 Decimals
                        2614                     118 Decimals
                        Total                    175 Decimals

3. According to the petitioners, the aforesaid land, for the purpose

of construction of water treatment plant has been acquired, but,

without following the provision as contained under Section 4 and

Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

4. It is the ground of the petitioners that without following the

provision as contained under Section 4 and Section 5-A of the Act,

1894, the declaration has been issued under Section 6 of the Act, 1894,

therefore, the entire process of acquisition for acquiring the land for

the purpose of construction of water treatment plant over the land in

question is contrary to the statutory provision and as such, the same is

vitiated in the eye of law and therefore, the entire land is to be restored

in favour of the petitioners.

It has further been contended on behalf of the learned counsel

for the petitioners that the land in question is still in possession of the

petitioners and therefore, it is a fit ground to pass an order for

declaring the acquisition of land as under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 to

be null and void.

5. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State-

respondents, wherein, stand inter-alia has been taken that Gazette

Notification has been issued, in view of the declaration to be made

under Section 6 of the Act, 1894, as would appear from Annexure-A

appended to the counter-affidavit.

6. According to the learned State Counsel, the moment the Gazette

Notification has come for declaring the land in question for the public

purpose as required under Section 6 of the Act, 1894, it cannot be said

that such declaration as under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 has been

issued without resorting to the provision of Section 4 and Section 5-A

of the Act, 1894.

The learned State Counsel has also taken the point that after the

land having been acquired on observance of the provision of Section 4

and Section 5-A and the declaration has been made under Section 6 of

the Act, 1894, thereafter, land acquisition proceeding has been

initiated being L.A. Case No.77/1959 and thereafter, the award was

prepared, in view thereof, the amount of compensation has been paid

and to that effect, specific stand has been taken as under paragraph-11

of the counter-affidavit, as per the list of award made in L.A. Case

No.77/1959 and therefore, it is incorrect on the part of the petitioners

to take the ground that there is no notification under Section 4 and

Section 5-A of the Act, 1894.

The learned State Counsel has further taken the point that the

award has been passed sometime in the year, 1959, but, the writ

petition has been filed in the year, 2013, which was after delay of

about 54 years and therefore, on this ground also, the writ petition is

not worth to be considered on the ground of applicability of principle

of delay and laches.

7. A rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the petitioners by

controverting the stand taken by the State-respondents in the counter-

affidavit, wherein, it has been reiterated that the award has been

passed without resorting to the provision of Section 4 and Section 5-A

of the Act, 1894 and therefore, the entire land which was said to have

been acquired by the State Government is in the teeth of the provision

of the Act, 1894 and as such, what has been contended by the State in

the counter-affidavit is not worth to be considered.

8. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the averments made in the affidavits filed on their behalf as

also the documents filed on their behalf have been scrutinized.

The fact which is not in dispute in this case that the land as per

the details furnished as under paragraph-6 to 12, as referred

hereinabove has been acquired sometime in the year, 1959. The

purpose for acquisition of land was for the construction of water

treatment plant. The land has been acquired and accordingly, a land

acquisition proceeding has been initiated being L.A. Case No.77/1959,

as would appear from the stand taken by the State in the counter

affidavit.

An issue has been raised on behalf of the petitioners that the

process of mechanism of acquiring the land as provided under the

Act, 1894 has not been followed, since, according to the petitioners, the

declaration has been notified as per the provision of Section 6 of the

Act, 1894 without issuance of notice under Section 4 and without

considering the said objection which was required to be considered in

view of the provision of Section 5-A of the Act, 1894.

This Court, therefore, is required to consider, as to whether, the

State Government has acquired the land without issuing notice as

required to be issued under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 and for its

consideration, as required under Section 5-A of the Act, 1894.

9. It is not in dispute that Section 6 notification notified in the

Gazette Notification as would appear from Annexure-A appended to

the counter-affidavit, as per which, it appears that the said Gazette

Notification is dated 24.10.1959, giving therein, the details of the land

and with a declaration under the provision of Section 6 of the Act I of

1894 and Section 3 Clause (1) of Act XVIII of 1885, for ready reference,

relevant part of the aforesaid Gazette Notification is being reproduced

hereinbelow:-

"By order of Government of Bihar, S.M. NAQAVI, Dy. Secy.

The 24th October 1959 No. D.L. A.-Dhan-77/5910216.R.-

Declaration.-Whereas it appears to the Government of Bihar that land is required to be taken by Government at the expense of the Jharia Water Board, Dhanbad for a public purpose, viz., for Head Work and Service Road for Damodar Water Supply Scheme in the villages of Petia no.107, Jitpur no.108 and Nunukdih no.109, pargana Jharia, zila Dhanbad,

it is hereby declared that for the above purpose a piece of land measuring, more or less, 131.83 acres bounded on the-

North-By survey plots nos.2616(P), 1348(P), 1377(P), 1346(P) Xxxx xxxx xxxx Xxxx xxxx xxxx Xxxx xxxx xxxx Xxxx xxxx xxxx South-By survey plots nos.2616(P), 2717(P), 2615(P), 2617(P), Xxxx xxxx xxxx Xxxx xxxx xxxx East-By survey plots nos.2636(P), 2692(P),2677(P), 2693(P) Of village Petia no.107 and by Common village boundary line Of villages Petia no.107 and Dungri No.111 both under thana Kenduadih (Jharia) and 671 (village road) of village Nunukdih, West-By S.P. nos.2615(P), 2617(P), and 2616(P) of village Petia no.107 and 2714, Boundary of Damodar River of village Petia, thana Kenduadih (Jharia) pargana Jharia, zila Dhanabd is required within the aforesaid villages of Petia no.107, Jitpur no.108 and Nunukdih no.109.

Mines of coal, iron-stone, slate or other minerals lying under the land, or any particular portion of the land, except only such parts of the mines and minerals as it may be necessary to dig, or carry away, or use in the construction of the work for the purpose of which the land is being acquired are not needed.

This declaration is made, under the provisions of section 6 of Act I of 1894 and section 3 clause (1) of Act, XVIII of 1885 to all whom it may concern"

10. The aforesaid Gazette notification dated 24.10.1959 has never

been questioned by the petitioners and even in this writ petition, the

same has not been questioned.

Now the question arises that whether after issuance of Gazette

Notification as required to be issued under Section 6 of the Act, 1894

can be said to be without resorting to the provision of Section 4 and

Section 5-A of the Act, 1894.

11. This Court, in order to answer the same, deems it fit and proper

to refer the provision of Sections 4, 5-A and 6 of the Act, 1894 for

proper adjudication of the lis.

For ready reference, Section 4 of the Act, 1894 reads as under:-

"4. Publication of preliminary notification and power of officers thereupon.-(1) Whenever it appears to the [appropriate Government] that land in any locality [is needed or] is likely to be needed for any public purpose [or for a company], a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette [and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language], and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality [(the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the notification)].

(2) Thereupon it shall be lawful for any officer, either, generally or specially authorized by such Government in this behalf, and for his servants and workmen,-

to enter upon and survey and take levels of any land in such locality;

to dig or bore in the sub-soil;

to do all other acts necessary to ascertain whether the land is adapted for such purpose;

to set out the boundaries of the land proposed to be taken and the intended line of the work (if any) proposed to be made thereon;

to mark such levels, boundaries and line by placing marks and cutting trenches; and where otherwise the survey cannot be completed and the levels taken and the boundaries and the line marked, to cut down and clear away any part of any standing crops, fence or jungle:

Provided that no person shall enter into any building or upon any enclosed Court or garden attached to a dwelling-house (unless with the consent of the occupier thereof) without previously giving such occupier at least seven days' notice in writing of his intention to do so."

It is evident from Section 4 as quoted and referred above that

whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any

locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose or

for a company, a notification to that effect shall be published in the

Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers circulating in that

locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language, and the

Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification

to be given at convenient places in the said locality and the last of the

dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being

hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the notification.

It is evident from Sub-section (2) of Section 4 thereof that such

Government will enter upon and survey and take levels of any land in

such locality; to dig or bore in the sub-soil; to do all other acts

necessary to ascertain whether the land is adapted for such purpose; to

set out the boundaries of the land proposed to be taken and the

intended line of the work (if any) proposed to be made thereon; to

mark such levels, boundaries and line by placing marks and cutting

trenches; and where otherwise the survey cannot be completed and

the levels taken and the boundaries and the line marked, to cut down

and clear away any part of any standing crops, fence or jungle:

Provided that no person shall enter into any building or upon

any enclosed Court or garden attached to a dwelling-house (unless

with the consent of the occupier thereof) without previously giving

such occupier at least seven days' notice in writing of his intention to

do so.

It is, thus, evident that as per Section 4 notification is required to

be issued for the purpose of preliminary investigation about the

utilization of their aforesaid land as provided under the said

provision, but, not without giving any notice at least prior to 7 days, in

writing of his intention to do so. The aforesaid provision, thus, is

having implication to provide an opportunity of hearing to the

concerned, from whose possession the land is being acquired for the

public purpose.

For ready reference, Section 5-A of the Act, 1894 reads as under:-

"5-A. Hearing of objections.-(1) Any person interested in any land which has been notified under section 4, sub-section (1), as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose or for a company may, [within thirty days from the date of the publication of the notification], object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality, as the case may be. (2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the Collector in writing, and the Collector shall give

the objector an opportunity of being heard [in person of by any person authorized by him in this behalf] or by pleader and shall, after hearing all such objection and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, [either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under section 4, sub-section(1), or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land, to the appropriate Government, containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him, for the decision of the Government]. The decision of the [appropriate Government] on the objections shall be final.

(3) For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the land were acquired under this Act.]"

It is, thus, evident from perusal of Section 5-A that any person

interested in any land which has been notified under section 4, sub-

section (1), as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose

or for a company may, within thirty days from the date of the

publication of the notification, object to the acquisition of the land or

of any land in the locality, as the case may be. Such objection is to be

decided by the Collector in writing by giving an opportunity of being

heard.

For ready reference, Section 6 of the Act, 1894 reads as under:-

"6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose.-(1) Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act, [when the [appropriate Government] is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made under section 5-A, sub-section (2),] that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a company, a

declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorized to certify its orders [and different declarations may be made from time to time in respect of different parcels of any land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section (1), irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or have been made (wherever required) under section 5-A, sub-section (2)]:

[Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under section 4, sub-section (1),-

(i) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 (1 of 1967), but before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date of the publication of the notification; or

(ii) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of publication of the notification:] [Provided further that] no such declaration shall be made unless the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid by a company, or wholly or partly out of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority."

The provision as contained under Section 6 stipulates that

subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act, when the appropriate

Government is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made

under section 5-A, sub-section (2), that any particular land is needed

for a public purpose, or for a company, a declaration shall be made to

that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such Government or of

some officer duly authorized to certify its orders and different

declarations may be made from time to time in respect of different

parcels of any land covered by the same notification under section 4,

sub-section (1), irrespective of whether one report or different reports

has or have been made wherever required under section 5-A, sub-

section (2), provided that no declaration in respect of any particular

land covered by a notification under section 4, sub-section (1),

published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition

(Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 (1 of 1967), but before

the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984,

shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date of the

publication of the notification or published after the commencement of

the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the

expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the notification.

Therefore, if the provision of Section 4 and Section 5-A will be

read together, it would be evident that the process of acquisition of

land effective from the day, when the notification is issued under

Section 4 by the appropriate Government in order to apprise the party

concerned to know that the said particular land is proposed to be

acquired for the public purpose, as also, for providing an opportunity

to such party to file an objection which is required to be considered by

the Collector of the concerned district under the provision of Section 5-

A of the Act, 1894.

The Collector, thereafter, will refer the same before the

appropriate Government and the aforesaid report after being

considered by the appropriate Government will be notified in the

official Gazette by way of declaration that such land is required for the

public purpose.

The declaration, under Section 6 has been notified in the official

Gazette, as would appear from Annexure-A appended to the counter

affidavit, which has not been disputed by the petitioners and rightly

not disputed because it is the Gazette notification and as such, there is

no reason to dispute unless a ground is being taken by the petitioners

about its fakeness.

Therefore, this Court is considering the aforesaid document to

be correct, since, the same has been issued by the appropriate

Government by way of Gazette notification.

12. It is not in dispute that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is in two

parts, i.e., (i) the declaration of the land for the public purpose and

thereafter, once it will be declared by the appropriate Government, a

particular land is required for the public purpose, then, the question of

consideration of amount of compensation will come and accordingly,

the procedure has been laid down after Section 6 which ultimately to

culminate when an award is being passed under the provision of the

Act, 1894, however, there are other provisions for different purposes.

13. Admittedly, herein, an award has been passed, as has been

stated by the State in the counter affidavit, wherein, stand has been

taken as under paragraph-11 thereof that the award has been passed in

L.A. Case No.77/1959, basis upon which, the amount has been paid in

favour of the displaced person whose land has been acquired by the

State Government.

14. This Court, therefore, is of the considered view on the basis of

the discussions made hereinabove that so far as the issue on fact is

concerned, the moment the declaration has come under Section 6 in

the Gazette Notification, it cannot be presumed that the same has been

issued without resorting to the provision of Section 4 and Section 5-A

of the Act, 1894.

15. Even for the sake of submission, if the same has been accepted,

then the question arises that why such point has not been raised

immediately when the proceeding has been initiated by way of L.A.

Case No.77/1959, rather, it appears from the counter-affidavit that the

predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner or the petitioner had

participated in the proceeding pertaining to L.A. Case No.77/1959,

basis upon which, an award has been passed and the amount has been

disbursed, which goes to suggest that no objection has ever been

raised on behalf of the predecessor-in-interest about non-issuance of

notice under Section 4 and its non-consideration under Section 5-A of

the Act, 1894.

Further, if that be the fact, then the question arises why such

point has not been raised, when the predecessor-in-interest of the

petitioner, if any, during the relevant time has agitated the aforesaid

point in the aforesaid land acquisition proceeding.

16. This Court, is further of the view that the moment the

adjudication has been made regarding the quantum of amount by

passing an order/award in L.A. Case No.77/1959, it will be presumed

that the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioners have been

issued notice under Section 4, otherwise, the question will arise that on

what basis the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had appeared

in the proceeding pertaining to L.A. Case No.77/1959. Therefore, the

moment the predecessor-in-interest had appeared in the aforesaid L.A.

proceeding, it must be on the basis of the notice issued under Section

4, otherwise, there was no question of putting appearance by the

predecessor-in-interest in the aforesaid L.A. proceeding commenced

sometime in the year, 1959.

17. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view on fact that the

writ petitioners have failed to make out a case for calling upon the

record, so far as the prayer no.(i) is concerned.

18. So far as the prayer no.(ii) is concerned which pertains to a

direction to be issued upon the respondents to make payment of

amount of compensation but, it is evident from the stand taken by the

State in the counter-affidavit as under paragraph-11, wherein, it has

been stated that the amount of compensation has been paid, which has

duly been received as per the list appended to the award passed in

L.A. Case No.77/1959.

The said fact as has been stated at paragraph-11 has not been

disputed by the writ petitioners, although, a rejoinder has been filed.

19. Therefore, even the prayer no.(ii), which pertains to

disbursement of amount of compensation is concerned, is also not

worth to be considered in the facts and circumstances of the case.

20. The other reason also, which is required to be considered that as

to whether, after lapse of 54 years, i.e., from passing of order in L.A.

Case No.77/1959 which has been passed sometime in the year, 1959,

can this writ petition be entertained on the ground of applicability of

principle of delay and laches.

21. The position of law is well settled as has been held by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahavir & Ors. Vrs. Union of India

& Anr., (2018) 3 SCC 588, wherein, at paragraph-23, it has been laid

down as under:-

"23. In the instant case, the claim has been made not only belatedly, but neither the petitioners nor their previous three generations had ever approached any of the authorities in writing for claiming compensation. No representation had ever been filed with any authority, none has been annexed and there is no averment made in the petition that any such representation had ever been filed. The claim appears not only stale and dead but extremely clouded. This we are mentioning as additional reasons, as such claims not only suffer from delay and laches but courts are not supposed to entertain such claims. Besides such claims become doubtful, cannot be received for consideration being barred due to delay and laches."

Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court recently in the judgment

rendered in Baljeet Singh (Dead) through Lrs. And Others Vs. State

of U.P. and Others [(2019) 15 SCC 33], has dismissed the claim of the

claimant who had approached the court of law after lapse of about 21

years seeking enhanced compensation. In the aforesaid case, at para-7,

the Hon'ble Apex Court has held which reads hereunder as :-

"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."

22. It is evident from the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court

in the case of Baljeet Singh (supra) which was a case for seeking a

direction for compensation in lieu of acquisition of land and the

Hon'ble Apex Court has declined to condone the delay of 21 years.

23. Herein, in the facts and circumstances of the case, since, the land

acquisition proceeding has been initiated sometime in the year, 1959,

but the writ petition has been filed in the year, 2013, i.e., after lapse of

54 years, therefore, on this ground also, i.e., on the ground of

applicability of principle of delay and laches, this writ petition is also

not worth to be considered.

24. This Court, on the basis of the entirety of the facts and