Full Judgment Text
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4583 OF 2008
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6437 of 2007)
Chhabile @ Ram Newaj ……Appellant (s)
VERSUS
State of U.P. & Ors. ……Respondent
(s)
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. A writ petition was filed by the appellant before the High
Court of Judicature of Allahabad for directions to the
respondents, State of U.P. and Ors., to make
compensation at the market rates including interest in
respect of the lands acquired by them. By an order dated
th
27 of March, 2006, the High Court dismissed the writ
application holding that there was an inordinate and
unexplained delay in filing the Writ Petition.
Subsequent to the rejection of the Writ Application, a
1
Review Application was filed for the purpose of
th
reviewing the order dated 27 of March, 2006 rejecting
the writ application on the ground of delay and latches.
The Review Application was also dismissed by a
Division Bench of the High Court on the ground that
“no ground was made out in the Review Application to
th
review the order dated 27 of March, 2006” . Against
the aforesaid two orders, this Special Leave Petition has
been filed which, on grant of leave, was heard in
presence of the learned counsel for the parties.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the impugned orders rejecting the writ
application as well as the review application. So far as
th
the order dated 27 of March, 2006 is concerned, we are
of the view, on consideration of the writ application, that
in fact, there was no inordinate delay in filing the writ
application because the wrong date was mentioned in the
th
writ petition which should be 10 of January, 2006, but
th
the same was written as 10 of January, 2005. However,
without passing a speaking and reasoned order, the High
2
Court rejected the writ application in the following
manner :-
“From a perusal of the record, it appears that there is
inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the writ
petition. The writ petition is dismissed on the ground
of latches.
th
5. So far as the order dated 4 of August, 2006 passed in
the Review Application is concerned, the same was
rejected on the ground that no ground has been made out
for reviewing the order. It also appears from the order
rejecting the review application that even on merits, no
ground was made out to interfere with the impugned
th
order dated 10 of January, 2006 passed by the Special
Land Acquisition Officer, Varanasi, which was
challenged in the writ application.
3
th
6. The order dated 4 of August, 2006 reviewing the writ
application on the aforesaid ground cannot be sustained.
We have looked into the averments made in the writ
application and the statement that the order of the
th
Special Land Acquisition Officer was passed on 10 of
th
January, 2006 and not on 10 of January, 2005. We do
not find any reason to reject the writ application on the
ground of delay. In this view of the matter, the writ
petition should be restored and the impugned order dated
th
27 of March, 2006 is set aside.
7. In our view, the order rejecting the review application,
which is also under challenge, is also liable to be set
aside and accordingly, it is hereby set aside and the writ
petition is restored to its original file. The High Court is
now requested to dispose of the writ petition on merits
and after giving hearing to the parties and after passing a
reasoned order in accordance with law. The appeal is,
therefore, allowed to the extent indicated above. There
will be no order as to costs.
4
…………………………J.
(TARUN CHATTERJEE)
…………………………J.
(AFTAB ALAM)
NEW DELHI,
JULY 21, 2008.
5