Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 2744 of 2002
PETITIONER:
Haryana State Handloom & Handicrafts
Corporation Ltd. & Anr.
RESPONDENT:
Jain Shool Society
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/10/2003
BENCH:
S. N. VARIAVA & H. K. SEMA
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
S. N. Variava J
This Appeal is against a Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court dated 21st March, 2001.
On 29th October, 1976 a Notification under Section 4 read with
Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued. An award came to
be passed on 30th September, 1977. Possession of the land was taken
and the land vested in the Government on 5th June, 1980.
The Respondents filed a reference under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act for enhancement of the compensation. They thereafter
also filed an appeal in the High Court against the Judgment of the
Reference Court.
On 2nd February, 1999 the Respondents filed a Writ Petition
challenging the acquisition on the ground that the urgency clause
could not have been invoked. This Writ Petition has been allowed by
the impugned Judgment.
It was submitted that the order of the High Court was just and
equitable. It was submitted that the Respondents had patiently waited
for all these years in order to see whether the land was put to use for
the purpose for which it was acquired. It was submitted that merely
because the Respondents had given, the State and the acquiring body,
time to put the land to use for the purposes for which it was acquired
their right to file the Writ Petition could not be affected. We see no
substance in this submission. If the Respondents were aggrieved by
the fact that the land was not being put to use for the purpose for
which it was acquired, even though the Urgency Clause was invoked,
they did not need to wait for over 22 years to file the Writ Petition. To
be also remembered that the Respondents had filed a Reference under
Section 18 as well as an Appeal to the High Court for enhancement of
compensation. This, therefore, was not a ground which justified the
gross delay and latches in filing the Writ Petition. Mere fact that the
land was not put to use for the purpose it was acquired by itself did
not justify the delay and latches.
It was next submitted that the Respondents did not file the Writ
Petition because some other party had challenged the acquisition and
got a stay order from a Court of law. It was submitted that the Writ
Petition was filed only after that litigation was disposed of. We see no
substance in this submission also. That litigation had nothing to do
with the Respondents’ or the acquisition of the Respondents’ land. In
the Writ Petition, filed by the Respondents, there is not even a word
about those proceedings. The fact of those proceedings only came on
record in the reply filed by the State. The State sought to justify, non
use of the land for the purpose for which it was acquired, on ground of
that litigation. Merely because this fact was mentioned by the State it
did be afford Respondents an excuse to justify delay and latches on
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
their part.
It was next submitted that even though there were delay and
latches on the part of the Respondents they were justified in filing the
Writ Petition as the fraud was being played by the State and the
acquiring body. It was submitted that the land was sought to be
transferred to some other body even though the acquisition was on
behalf of Appellants. It was submitted that the Respondents filed the
Writ Petition as this fraud came to their knowledge. We see no
substance in this contention also. In the Writ Petition there is no
ground of fraud. These are also facts which came to light as a result
of the reply filed by the State in the Writ Petition. It was the State
who mentioned that the Appellants did not have the money to develop
the land and that therefore the land was proposed to be transferred to
some other party. This would afford no ground for entertaining a Writ
Petition which was filed 22 years after the Section 4 Notification had
been issued.
Recently, in the case of Northern Indian Glass Industries vs.
Jaswant Singh reported in (2003) 2 SCC 335, this Court considered the
question whether a Writ Petition filed after 17 years of issue of a
notification under Section 4 could be entertained. This Court has held
that such a Writ Petition must not be entertained. It is held that the
Writ Petition must be dismissed on the grounds of delay and latches
itself. It is held that mere non payment of enhanced compensation or
the fact that the land had not been put to use for the purpose of which
it was acquired would be no ground for justifying delay and latches.
We are in full agreement with the view expressed therein.
In this case, there is absolutely no explanation for the delay and
latches of over 22 years, particularly when the Respondents had
applied for enhancement of compensation.
The only ground given by the High court in justifying delay is as
follows:
"Mr. Gupta contends that the petition is belated. We
are unable to accept the contention. The respondent is
trying to take advantage of its own wrong. The petitioner
had waited patiently to see if the respondent would utilize
the land. When it found that nothing was being done, the
petitioner has approached this Court. The petitioner
cannot be accused of any delay so as to disentitle it to the
relief. The delay, if any, shows the bonafides of the
petitioner."
In our view, this reasoning is entirely unsustainable and erroneous.
The Respondents did not need to wait 22 years to see that nothing
was being done to utilize the land. The High Court was entirely in
error in stating that the Respondents could not be accused of any
delay and that the delay in fact showed the bonafides of the
Respondents. Further, the High Court seems to have overlooked the
fact that the Respondents had applied for enhancement of
compensation and had filed a Writ Petition only after those
proceedings were over.
In our view, the Judgment of the High Court is unsustainable and
is accordingly set aside. The Writ Petition filed by the Respondents
stands dismissed.
Accordingly the Appeal is allowed. The Respondents shall pay to
the Appellants costs fixed at Rs. 5,000/-.