Uttarakhand High Court
Ajay Kumar Verma & Another ...... ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 5 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
SPECIAL APPEAL No.182 OF 2021
05TH JANUARY, 2023
Ajay Kumar Verma & another ...... Appellants
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ...... Respondents
Presence: -
Shri Anand Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the
appellants.
Shri J.C. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Shri Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no. 3.
JUDGMENT: (Per Shri Vipin Sanghi, C.J.)
The present Special Appeal is directed against
the judgment dated 05.05.2021, rendered by the learned
Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 977 of 2021. The
appellant preferred the said writ petition to seek direction
to the respondents to award him compensation, in respect
of his alleged land, which the respondent-State allegedly
took over without due process of law, for construction of a
road.
2. The learned Single Judge noticed that according
to the writ petitioner, his land was allegedly taken over
way back in the year 1990 for construction of road called
Tirathpur, Dhanpur Motor Road.
3. The writ petition itself was preferred 31 years
after the alleged takeover of the said land for construction
of the road. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner
placed on record his representation dated 13.02.2021,
claiming compensation at current rates. The averment
made in the writ petition, touching upon the aspect of
delay and laches, is found in para 9 of the writ petition,
wherein, the petitioners stated that they have moved
several representations before the respondents,
requesting therein, that they may be given compensation
at the present circle rate, or they may be given some
other land in place of their land, but till date, no action
has been taken in this regard and the representations
moved by the petitioners are still pending undecided
before the respondents.
4. However, no particulars or details of the
representations, earlier sent, were disclosed by the
appellants. As aforesaid, the only representation placed
on record was of 13.02.2021, which was made about 31
years after the alleged takeover of the petitioners' land.
Consequently, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ
petition on the grounds of delay and laches.
2
5. The submission of learned counsel for the
appellant is that in similar circumstances, the Supreme
Court entertained the claim of the land owner after 24
years of the illegal takeover of the land of the appellant in
Tukaram Kana Joshi & others vs. Maharashtra
Industrial Development Corporation & others,
(2013) 1 SCC 353.
6. We have perused the said judgment, and heard
learned counsel for the appellants. We have also perused
the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single
Judge.
7. A perusal of the judgment in Tukaram Kana
Joshi (Supra) shows that the same is founded upon the
facts of that case. In that case, the Supreme Court, had
the relevant record before it to conclude that the
immovable property indeed belonged to the appellant;
that it was taken over by the State without acquisition
and without payment of compensation, and that the
appellant had been representing for grant of
compensation, but to no avail. In fact, perusal of the said
judgment shows that the earlier acquisition proceedings
undertaken in respect of the land, which had lapsed, were
noticed and there was complete record available before
the Court, as to when the land of the appellant had been
3
taken over. The said judgment also shows that the
Supreme Court recognized the position that the question
of condonation of delay is one of discretion, and has to be
decided on the basis of the facts of the case at hand, as
the same vary from case to case.
8. As noticed hereinabove, there is no explanation
furnished by the appellants for the delay of 31 years in
making the representation and, thereafter, approaching
the Court. Though the appellants claimed that they have
been representing to the respondent authorities over the
years, but no particulars have been provided, and no
other representations have been placed on the record.
9. Para 22 of the aforesaid judgment also shows
that the said judgment was rendered on the concession
made by the Senior State Counsel.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view
that the said decision does not come to the aid of the
appellants. The concept of delay and laches is found in
the principles of equity. When a party approaches the
Court, in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction
after prolong delay, that party disables the opposing State
authorities from effectively contesting the claim made by
the petitioner, as, with passage of time, the officers would
not be available and even the official record may not be
4
available. Thus, there would be no way that the state
instrumentality would be able to controvert or meet the
averments and the allegations that the writ petitioner may
make.
11. In our view, the present is a fit case, which
deserves dismissal on account of extreme delay and
laches on the part of the appellants in approaching the
Court. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere
with the impugned judgment and the same is accordingly
dismissed.
________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
_______________________
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.
Dated: 05th January, 2023
AK
