Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhandari Metal Industrial Works ... vs State Of M.P. Through Revenue ... on 1 April, 2022
Author: Vivek Rusia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI)
ON THE 1st OF APRIL, 2022
REVIEW PETITION No. 204 of 2020
Between:-
BHANDARI METAL INDUSTRIAL WORKS. INDORE
(NOW BHANDARI IRON AND STEEL CO. AND
EARLIER NANDLAL BHANDARI & SONS)
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY NARPAT
S/O.LATE JODHSINGH BHANDARI.
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SANJAY SAREEN, ADVOCATE )
AND
1. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH REVENUE
DEPARTMENT PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
MANTRALAYA VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF MP THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
HOME DEPARTMENT MANTRALAYA, VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. STATE OF MP THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. THE COMMISSIONER (REVENUE) INDORE
DIVISION, MOTI BUNGLOW, M.G. ROAD, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. THE COLLECTOR COLLECTOR DISTT INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ADITYA GARG, GOVT. ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for orders this day, JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
passed the following:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this present review petition, seeking recalling of order
dated 19.6.2018, passed in W.A.No.285/2018 whereby, the Division Bench has
dismissed the writ appeal and affirmed the order passed by the writ court dated
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN SHAILESH
MAHADEV
SUKHDEVE
Date: 2022.04.04
7.2.2018, passed in W.P.No.2537/2018. The petitioner approached the writ court
16:51:43 IST
by way of the aforesaid writ petition alleging that the land owned by the petitioner
has been taken by the respondents for construction of police station. Since the
respondents did not follow the procedure prescribed for acquisition of the land
therefore, the petitioner is entitled either for compensation or alternate land in lieu
of the aforesaid land.
The writ petition came up for consideration on 7.02.2018 and the writ court
has found that the land of the petitioner was taken by the respondents on 11.9.1934
and the petitioner approached this Court in the year 2018, therefore there is
unexplained inordinate delay in approaching this Court after 74 years. Hence, no
relief can be granted to the petitioner on the ground of delay and laches alone. The
operative part passed by the writ court is reproduced below :-
In light of the aforesaid judgment, it can safely be gathered that
a person, who is not vigilant and does not seek intervention of the
Court within reasonable time from the date of accrual of cause of
action or alleged violation of the constitutional, legal or other right is
not entitled for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. It has also
been held that no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down and no
straight-jacket formula can be evolved for deciding the question of
delay/laches and each case has to be decided on its own merit.
In the present case, the petitioner has woke up from slumber
after 74 years for the reasons best known to him and it can safely be
gathered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, no relief
can be granted to the petition on the ground of delay and laches
alone.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the relief prayed by the
petitioner cannot be granted.
Resultantly, the admission is declined.
Certified copy as per rules.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred a the writ
appeal and that too has been dismissed by order dated 19.06.2018 with an
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN SHAILESH
observation that "On due consideration of the aforesaid and the in absence of
MAHADEV
SUKHDEVE
any sufficient explanation for the delay, no case is made out to interfere."
Date: 2022.04.04
16:51:43 IST
Now the petitioner is before this Court by way of review petition which itself
is time barred by 554 days. Hence, I.A.No.1028 of 2020 under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act is filed. The application as well as the review petition both are heard.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the writ court as
well as the writ appellate Court have dismissed the writ petition and writ appeal on
the ground of delay, but the judgment on which reliance has been placed is on the
point that the petitioner is challenging the acquisition proceedings. He has further
submitted that the petitioner has made it clear in writ petition and writ appeal that
the petitioner is not inclined to challenge the acquisition proceeding, but only
seeking compensation for the land taken by the respondents.
We have gone through the detailed orders passed by the writ court as well
as by writ appellate court. Both the Courts have dismissed the petition as well as
appeal solely on the ground of delay without adverting on merits of the case,
therefore, the petitioner has wrong construed that both the orders have been
dismissed touching on the merits of the case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily placed reliance on the decision
of the Apex Court in the case of Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh &
Others, passed in Civil Appeal Nos.60-61 of 2020, decided on 8.1.2020. Para 11,
12 and 13 reads as under :-
11. In the present case, the Appellant being an illiterate
person, who is a widow coming from a rural area has been deprived
of her private property by the State without resorting to the procedure
prescribed by law. The Appellant has been divested of her right to
property without being paid any compensation whatsoever for over
half a century. The cause of action in the present case is a continuing
one, since the Appellant was compulsorily expropriated of her
property in 1967 without legal sanction or following due process of
law. The present case is one where the demand for justice is so
compelling since the State has admitted that the land was taken over
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN SHAILESH
without initiating acquisition proceedings, or any procedure known to
MAHADEV
SUKHDEVE
Date: 2022.04.04
16:51:43 IST
law. We exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 136 and
142 of the Constitution, and direct the State to pay compensation to
the Appellant.
12. The State has submitted that in 2008 it had initiated
acquisition proceedings in the case of an adjoining land owner viz.
Shri Anakh Singh pursuant to a direction given by the High Court in
C.W.P.No.1192 of 2004. The State initiated acquisition only in the
case where directions were issued by the High Court, and not in the
case of other land owners whose lands were compulsorily taken over,
for the same purpose, and at the same time. As a consequence, the
present land owner has been driven to move the Court in their
individual cases for redressal.
13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
present case, the Respondentâ€"State is directed to pay the
compensation on the same terms as awarded by the Reference Court
vide Order dated 07.07.2015 in Anakh Singh’s case (i.e. Land
Reference No.1 of 2011 RBT No.01/13) alongwith all statutory
benefits including solatium, interest, etc. within a period of 8 weeks,
treating it as a case of deemed acquisition. An Affidavit of compliance
is directed to be filed by the State before this Court within 10 weeks.
In the aforesaid case also, the delay was almost the same, but the appellant
was an illiterate person and widow living in a rural area who was deprived of her
private property by the State therefore, the Supreme Court exercised the extra
ordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 and 142 of the Constitution of India and
directed the State to pay the compensation. In that case the State initiated the
acquisition proceeding for acquiring nearby land and passed the award therefore,
the Apex Court has directed to follow the same award in case of the petitioner
therein. In the present case, the petitioner is a company registered under the
Companies Act although the same has been wound up in 1962, therefore this case
will not help the petitioner.
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
On due consideration of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel
SAN SHAILESH
MAHADEV
SUKHDEVE
Date: 2022.04.04
16:51:43 IST for the parties, we find that there is no error apparent on the face of the record.
The orders passed by the writ court as well as writ appellate court are just and
proper. No interference of this Court is warranted.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
JUDGE JUDGE
SS/-
Signature Not Verified
VerifiedDigitally
Digitally signed by
SAN SHAILESH
MAHADEV
SUKHDEVE
Date: 2022.04.04
16:51:43 IST
