Rama Nand Choudhary vs The State Of Bihar
2023 Latest Caselaw 2802 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20480 of 2018
     ======================================================

Rama Nand Choudhary, Son of Late Lila Nand Choudhary, Resident of village- Samiya (mahinathpur), P.O.- Mehat, P.S- Bhairabsthan, district- Madhubani.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Collector, Madhubani.

3. The Additional Collector, Madhubani.

4. The District Land Acquisition Officer (NH 57 Project), Madhubani.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shankar Kumar Choudhary, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Raj Kishore Roy, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 05-07-2023

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the State.

2.The present petition has been filed for directing the

respondent authority to consider and dispose of the

representation of the petitioner dated 18.09.2018 (Annexure-2)

filed in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation And

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And

Resettlement Act, 2013 for determination of the amount of

compensation awarded in favour of the petitioner against his

land appertaining to Khata No. 205, new Khesra No. 1094,

1094A, and 1095 (old Khesra No.1120 and new Khesra 1095

old no. 1074 respectively, situated at Village -Mahinathpur, P.S. Patna High Court CWJC No.20480 of 2018 dt.05-07-2023

Bharibsthan, District- Madhubani which has been taken for

broadening and realignment NH-57.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is

son of Lilanand Choudnary and in whose name letter has been

issued from the Land Acquisition Officer, Madhubani. He

further submits that the petitioner had received part payment but

due to death of his father he could not receive the full payment

towards compensation and, therefore, the money towards

compensation is still lying with the District Land Acquisition

Officer, Madhubani. He further submits that he has filed several

representations in this regard before the respondent No.2,

namely, the Collector, Madhubani, but till date neither any

decision has been taken on the representation of the petitioner

nor payment of compensation has been made.

4. Learned counsel for the State submits that in the

light of the pleading made in the counter affidavit filed on

behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4, petitioner is not entitled for

any relief in this matter due to the reason that the alleged

acquisition was made in the year 2006. He has also referred a

judgment rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on

17.05.2019 in CWJC No. 10057 of 2019, titled as Shyam

Mandal vs. the State of Bihar in which on the ground of delay Patna High Court CWJC No.20480 of 2018 dt.05-07-2023

the claim has been rejected.

5. Upon going through the pleadings and arguments

advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to

place the latest judgment on the point of delay rendered by

Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Sukh Dutt Ratra & Anrs.

Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2022 (7)

Supreme Court Cases 508. It would be apposite to quote

paragraph Nos. 18 and 24 as under :-

18. There is a welter of precedents on delay and laches which conclude either way--as contended by both sides in the present dispute--however, the specific factual matrix compels this Court to weigh in favour of the appellant landowners. The State cannot shield itself behind the ground of delay and laches in such a situation; there cannot be a "limitation" to doing justice. This Court in a much earlier case

-- Maharashtra SRTC v. Balwant Regular Motor Service [Maharashtra SRTC v. Balwant Regular Motor Service, (1969) 1 SCR 808 : AIR 1969 SC 329] , held : (AIR pp. 335-36, para 11) "11. ... 'Now the doctrine of laches in Courts of Equity is not an arbitrary or a technical doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy, either because the party has, by his conduct, done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by his conduct and neglect he has, though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put the other party in a situation in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted in either of these cases, lapse of time and delay are most material.

But in every case, if an argument against relief, which otherwise would be just, is founded upon Patna High Court CWJC No.20480 of 2018 dt.05-07-2023

mere delay, that delay of course not amounting to a bar by any statute of limitations, the validity of that defence must be tried upon principles substantially equitable. Two circumstances, always important in such cases, are, the length of the delay and the nature of the acts done during the interval, which might affect either party and cause a balance of justice or injustice in taking the one course or the other, so far as relates to the remedy'."

24. And with regard to the contention of delay and laches, this Court went on to hold : (Vidya Devi case [Vidya Devi v. State of H.P., (2020) 2 SCC 569 : (2020) 1 SCC (Civ) 799] , SCC pp. 574-75, para

12) "12.12. The contention advanced by the State of delay and laches of the appellant in moving the Court is also liable to be rejected. Delay and laches cannot be raised in a case of a continuing cause of action, or if the circumstances shock the judicial conscience of the Court. Condonation of delay is a matter of judicial discretion, which must be exercised judiciously and reasonably in the facts and circumstances of a case. It will depend upon the breach of fundamental rights, and the remedy claimed, and when and how the delay arose. There is no period of limitation prescribed for the courts to exercise their constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial justice. 12.13. In a case where the demand for justice is so compelling, a constitutional court would exercise its jurisdiction with a view to promote justice, and not defeat it. [P.S.

Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N., (1975) 1 SCC 152 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 22] "

6. After considering this aspect that it is the

petitioner's land which has been acquired in the year 2006 and

the National Highway Authority of India has deposited money Patna High Court CWJC No.20480 of 2018 dt.05-07-2023

for him for which the petitioner is entitled and particularly in the

light of decision rendered in the case of Sukh Dutt Ratra (supra)

in this regard, this Court finds that there is no delay and laches

in land compensation.

7. As such, this writ petition is allowed granting

liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the

respondent No.2, namely, the Collector, Madhubani raising all

the grievances as raised in the present petition along with a copy

of this order as also the judgment rendered in the case of Sukh

Dutt Ratra (supra) within four weeks from the date of the order

whereupon the respondent No.2, namely, the Collector,

Madhubani is directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order on

the representation of the petitioner after awarding adequate

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also considering the

findings given in the judgment aforesaid within eight weeks

thereafter.

8. With the above observation and direction, the writ

petition stands disposed of.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Ashwini/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          12.07.2023
Transmission Date       NA