Telangana High Court
Union Of India vs Fasahatunnisa Begum , Shamshusinnisa ... on 22 February, 2024
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
WRIT APPEAL No.2002 OF 2005
JUDGMENT:
(per the Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti)
Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor
General of India represents the appellant-Union of India.
Mr. A. Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel appears for
Ms. Rubaina S. Khatoon, learned counsel for the respondent
Nos.1 to 3 and respondent Nos.6 to 20.
Mr. P. Bhavana Rao, learned Government Pleader for
Land Acquisition for respondent Nos.4 and 5.
2. This intra court appeal emanates from an order dated
29.11.2004 passed by a learned Single Judge of the erstwhile
High Court of Andhra Pradesh by which W.P.No.10138 of 1992
preferred by respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein has been disposed
of with a direction to the appellant and respondents No.4 and
5 to initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
CJ & JAK, J
W.A.No.2002 OF 2005
(for short, 'the Act') for acquisition of the lands admeasuring
Acs.3.35 guntas in Survey No.39 and Acs.4.13 guntas in
Survey No.40 (briefly 'the subject land' hereinafter) situated at
Kanchanbagh Village, Charminar Mandal, Hyderabad.
3. Brief facts:
A notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued
on 30.01.1964. Thereafter, a declaration under Section 6 of
the Act was issued on 05.02.1964. An enquiry was held under
Section 5A of the Act, which culminated into award dated
11.03.1965, by which land admeasuring Acs.341.00 guntas
was acquired for the purpose of establishment of Defence
Laboratories, Defence Research Development Laboratory
(DRDL) and Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory
(DMRL). A photocopy of the award dated 11.03.1965 along
with compensation allowed for the land to an extent
Acs.341.00 guntas is placed on record for perusal of this
Court.
CJ & JAK, J
W.A.No.2002 OF 2005
3.1 The respondents No.1 to 3 filed the aforesaid writ
petition in the year 1992 i.e., after a period of 27 years from
the date of passing of the award seeking a direction to the
appellant and respondents No.4 and 5 to initiate action for
acquisition of the subject land on the ground that the same
has not been acquired and the appellant is in unauthorized
possession of the same.
3.2 The learned Single Judge, by an order dated
29.11.2004, has allowed the writ petition. Assailing the said
order, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
3.3 A Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated
07.11.2005, while directing the parties to maintain status quo,
issued the following direction:
"In the meantime, the Government shall submit a report
as to how much land they acquired and how much land
actually they took possession of in the acquired land."
3.4 The District Collector, Hyderabad, filed the additional
counter-affidavit in which it was categorically stated that the
CJ & JAK, J
W.A.No.2002 OF 2005
Defence Labs are not in possession of any excess land. The
District Collector has stated specifically in his additional
counter affidavit that the Defence Labs are in possession and
enjoyment of actual extent of land which was acquired
pursuant to the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act for
which an award was passed and compensation was paid 36
years back. The Defence Labs are not in possession of land
over and above the lands acquired.
3.5. It is further stated in the additional counter affidavit by
the District Collector that the Special Deputy Collector (LA),
Industries, was not arrayed as a party to the writ petition, but,
he filed a counter affidavit on the basis of incorrect
information furnished and that the Special Deputy Collector
(LA) Industries in his counter had stated that the Defence
Organization was in possession of excess land to an extent of
Acs.3.33 guntas in Survey Nos.39 and 40 of Kanchanbagh.
It is stated in the counter affidavit of the District Collector that
the Surveyor had included lands, which were not acquired and
not occupied by the Defence Organization and further stated
CJ & JAK, J
W.A.No.2002 OF 2005
that there is reason to believe that there was some collusion
and fraud at the lower levels. These statements are culled out
from the additional counter affidavit of the District Collector,
Hyderabad, filed on record.
3.6 It is also stated in the additional counter affidavit of the
District Collector that the entire topography of the area is
changed and Survey No.39 was sub-divided into Survey
No.39/1 which is situated beyond the compound wall. This
was neither notified nor acquired and sub-division Survey
No.39/2 for the land to an extent of Acs.18.35 guntas was the
land notified and acquired. Similarly, Survey No.40 was
sub-divided into Survey Nos.40/1 and 40/2. Sub-division
Survey No.40/2 for the land to an extent of Acs.20.17 guntas
alone was notified and acquired. The land in the sub-division
No.40/1 beyond the compound wall of Defence Laboratory was
neither notified nor acquired. The land beyond the compound
wall of Defence Labs is not in the occupation of Defence Labs.
The District Collector has stated that the additional counter
affidavit is filed to bring the correct and factual position of the
CJ & JAK, J
W.A.No.2002 OF 2005
case to the notice of the Hon'ble Court. This Court has taken
note of the statements made in additional counter affidavit
filed by none other than the District Collector, who candidly
placed the facts on record.
3.7. A report dated 27.02.2023 of Deputy Director, Survey
and Land Records, Hyderabad, is placed before the Court
during the proceedings in writ appeal, wherein it is stated that
the appellant is in possession of the land, not covered under
the acquisition notification, to an extent of Ac.0.11 guntas in
Survey No.39 and Ac.1.39 guntas in Survey No.40.
3.8. The learned Single Judge in his order held that there is
no justification on behalf of the respondents to deny or deprive
the writ petitioners the relief as claimed by them. Aggrieved by
the order of the learned Single Judge, the Union of India has
filed the present writ appeal.
4. It is submitted by the learned Deputy Solicitor General
of India appearing on behalf of the Union of India that the
claims are made after a long lapse of acquisition on the basis
CJ & JAK, J
W.A.No.2002 OF 2005
of presumptions without there being any title deeds nor by
producing any records to prove or support the claim of excess
land. It is further submitted that an award dated 11.03.1965
was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer allowing the
compensation for the land acquired. The possession of land
was taken on 23.02.1964. It is pointed out that by office letter
in Lr.No.L/984/89, dated 21.01.1991, the Defence Estate
Officer (DEO), A.P., Circle, Secunderabad, was requested to
send the requisition for the excess area of Acs.3.33 guntas
which the Defence Authorities are in excess possession of
Survey Nos.39 and 40 of Kanchanbagh. It is further pointed
out that the DEO in his letter dated 11.02.1991 has informed
that the area for which requisition was given was handed over
to them and they are not in possession of excess land and that
there might be clerical/calculation mistake occurred in
computing the area which has to be verified again. The
statement made by the Defence Authorities was categorical
and that there is no excess land. He further submitted that he
has filed objection to the survey report prepared by the Deputy
CJ & JAK, J
W.A.No.2002 OF 2005
Director, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad. It is pointed
out that the aforesaid survey has been conducted behind the
back of the officers of the appellant.
4.1 It is contended by learned Deputy Solicitor General of
India that the District Collector in his additional counter
affidavit has categorically stated that the Defence Labs are not
in possession of over and above the lands acquired for it and
compensation was paid 26 years back. It is further contended
that even assuming for a moment that the Defence Labs are in
possession of any excess lands, the principle of adverse
possession is attracted and that long delay of 36 years
disentitles the writ petitioners any relief, much less relief
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ
petitioners are guilty of laches. In support of aforesaid
submissions, reliance is placed on Babu Singh and Others v.
Union of India and Others 1 and Haryana State Handloom &
(1981) 3 SCC 628
CJ & JAK, J
W.A.No.2002 OF 2005
Handicrafts Corporation Limited and Another v. Jain
School Society 2.
5. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the
unofficial respondents that long after conclusion of
proceedings, a representation and a legal notice was sent by
unofficial respondents. It is pointed out that pursuant to the
complaint, the official respondents initiated steps to measure
the entire land and demarcated the actual land notified to be
acquired, which is evident by proceedings No.J1/1507/75,
dated 22.12.1981. It is contended that as the official
respondents have been postponing the measurement of the
land, the unofficial respondents submitted another
representation dated 01.02.1982.
5.1 It is submitted that in the counter affidavits, different
stands have been taken by the authorities and as per report of
Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records dated 20.03.2023,
there is excess land to an extent of Ac.0.11 guntas in Survey
(2003) 12 SCC 538
CJ & JAK, J
W.A.No.2002 OF 2005
No.39 and Ac.1.39 guntas in Survey No.40, which is in
possession of Defence Labs. It is urged that respondent
authorities are liable to pay compensation. It is submitted
that the judgments relied on by the learned Deputy Solicitor
General are not applicable to the facts of the case as Urgency
Clause was invoked in the said judgments.
5.2. It is contended that the unofficial respondents are
entitled to an appropriate writ, direction or order for violation
of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and that in the
facts and circumstances of the case, the unofficial
respondents have been deprived of the right to property
without authority of law and hence, they are entitled to
compensation for the excess land acquired. For the said
propositions, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon the
judgments of the Supreme Court and other High Courts in
Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan and Others v. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Others 3, Dolby Builders Private Limited
and Another v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
(1982) 1 SCC 39 : 1982 SCC (Crl) 53
CJ & JAK, J
W.A.No.2002 OF 2005
and Others 4 and Sharif Masih v. Punjab and Haryana High
Court 5.
6. It is submitted by learned Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5 that as per the
land acquisition record, there is no excess land and the
Defence Labs are not in possession of excess land. The survey
report dated 20.03.2023 submitted by the Deputy Director of
Survey and Land Records indicates that the there is an excess
land in possession of the Defence Labs. It is also submitted
that as per the land acquisition record, there is no excess
land.
7. We have considered submissions made on both sides
and have perused the record. It is not in dispute that large
extents of land have been acquired for the purpose of
establishment of Defence Labs in Kanchanbagh area of
Hyderabad in the year 1965. It is evident from record that
award was passed in the year 1965 for the land to an extent of
2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2110
(2007) 15 SCC 753
CJ & JAK, J
W.A.No.2002 OF 2005
Acs.341.00 and compensation was paid. The unofficial
respondents herein state that they have made representations
for survey of land in the year 1981 to state authorities and the
state authorities have replied to the said representations that
excess land has been acquired.
8. On a perusal of the entire record, affidavit filed in
support of the writ petition, the material papers annexed and
the report of authorities (filed during the course of proceedings
of writ appeal), it is noticed that except stating in the writ
affidavit that the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 (writ petitioners)
are the owners of property, neither a single document nor any
material paper has been filed to substantiate the claim that
they are the owners of land for which compensation is being
claimed. On a perusal of the order of learned Single Judge, it
is noticed that there is no reference with respect to the title or
ownership of the property of the writ petitioners.
9. This Court is conscious of the fact that the District
Collector has filed an additional counter affidavit stating that
CJ & JAK, J
W.A.No.2002 OF 2005
the Surveyor had included lands, which were not acquired and
not occupied by the Defence Organization and it was further
stated in the additional counter affidavit that there is reason
to believe that there was some collusion and fraud at the lower
levels. The District Collector has further stated in his
additional counter affidavit that the same is filed to bring the
correct and factual position of the case to the notice of the
Hon'ble Court. The District Collector has been very candid in
placing the facts on record.
10. It is pertinent to take note of the fact that the unofficial
respondents (writ petitioners) were aware of the land
acquisition proceedings and the award passed and claiming to
be owners, steps should have been initiated for appropriate
legal remedies immediately. They waited for the land
acquisition proceedings to be completed and award to be
passed and thereafter filed a writ petition after a long delay of
26/27 years. Not a word of explanation is offered for the
inordinate delay, except stating that they have been
CJ & JAK, J
W.A.No.2002 OF 2005
pursuing by making representations (in year 1981) before
the state authorities for survey etc.
11. The Supreme Court in a catena of decisions held that
the writ Court should refuse to exercise its extraordinary
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if
persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and
who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach
the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle
settled matters. The doctrine of delay and laches should not be
lightly brushed aside. A writ Court is required to weigh the
explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The
Court should bear in mind that it is exercising an
extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional
Court, it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens, but
simultaneously it has to keep itself alive to the primary
principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate
reason, approaches the Court at his own leisure or pleasure,
the Court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize,
CJ & JAK, J
W.A.No.2002 OF 2005
whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not.
Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant
and law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. It
is well settled that power of the High Court to issue an
appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
is discretionary and the High Court in exercise of its discretion
does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the
acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on
the part of the petitioner in filing a petition and such delay is
not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to
intervene and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
12. Mere filing of representations before the authorities
and pursuing the same cannot be sufficient explanation for
delay in approaching the writ Court for grant of relief. We are
of the considered opinion that the unofficial respondents
did not pursue a legal remedy and kept on submitting
representations which is not a remedy in law. The claims of
the unofficial respondents are highly belated and stale. The
CJ & JAK, J
W.A.No.2002 OF 2005
writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground of
delay and laches.
13. We have no hesitation in holding that the writ
petitioners have approached this Court after a long,
inordinate, unexplained delay of 27 years and are guilty of
delay and laches. The writ petitioners have nowhere stated
any satisfactory reasons whatsoever for such delay. The
learned Single Judge has grossly erred in not considering the
aspect of delay and laches and in entertaining the claim of the
writ petitioners.
14. The inordinate unexplained delay of 26/27 years cannot
be lost sight of. In addition, whether appellant is in
possession of excess land is a question of fact. In view of the
rival stand taken by parties, the same is a disputed question
of fact. On this ground also, no relief can be granted to the
unofficial respondents in this writ appeal.
CJ & JAK, J
W.A.No.2002 OF 2005
15. For all the foregoing reasons, the writ appeal deserves
to be allowed and same is accordingly allowed. Consequently,
the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order
as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_____________________________
ALOK ARADHE, CJ
___________________________
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
Date:22.02.2024
KH
CJ & JAK, J
W.A.No.2002 OF 2005
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
WRIT APPEAL No.2002 OF 2005
Date:22.02.2024
KH
