Writ petition dismissed for misleading pleadings and unexplained 14-year delay in challenging land acquisition.

The petitioners claimed ownership of agricultural lands at Village Kasva, Taluka Kadi, District Mehsana, portions of which had allegedly been acquired and taken into possession for construction of the Sedrana Distributary–Devgadh Minor Canal of the Viramgam-1 Branch of the Narmada Canal in or around 2012.

A Land Acquisition Case No. 62 of 2012 was stated to have been registered, and statements under paragraph 104 of the Land Acquisition Manual were allegedly prepared.

The petitioners contended that consent awards had been passed in respect of certain lands, although they had not consented to acquisition, and that no regular award had been declared concerning their lands.

They further relied on measurement sheets prepared in 2018 and 2024, asserting that the relevant portions had been used for the canal project.

The Court noted that the petition did not disclose the relevant acquisition notifications, the precise lands covered by them, the circumstances leading to the 2018 and 2024 measurements, or a satisfactory explanation for the petitioners’ delay of approximately 14 years in approaching the Court.

1. Whether the petitioners’ claim for relief under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 could be entertained despite the vague pleadings and unexplained delay of approximately 14 years.

2. Whether the writ petition was liable to be dismissed because the petitioners failed to disclose complete and accurate particulars of the acquisition notifications, measurements, and award proceedings and had not approached the Court with clean hands.

3. Whether the petitioners should be granted liberty to file a fresh petition after placing complete particulars of the acquisition and award proceedings on record.

The Court applied the principle that discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution may be declined on the grounds of unexplained laches, suppression or non-disclosure of material facts, vague pleadings, and failure to approach the Court with clean hands.

The Court also considered the petitioners’ reliance on the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, while requiring them to establish the underlying acquisition proceedings and their entitlement to statutory benefits.

The Court further required disclosure of any award or determination made in the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, including the compensation determination referred to under Section 23.

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the judgment.

The Court held that the petitioners’ assertion that no award had been declared could not be examined on the basis of vague pleadings, particularly when the petition omitted the acquisition notifications and precise particulars of the acquired lands.

The alleged possession since 2012 and the preparation of measurement sheets in 2018 and 2024 demonstrated that the petitioners were aware of the acquisition-related proceedings, yet they offered no adequate explanation for approaching the Court after 14 years.

Their failure to explain the purpose and circumstances of the later measurements, coupled with the absence of a clear statement regarding any award, led the Court to conclude that they had not approached it with clean hands and that the petition contained misleading and incomplete statements.

Consequently, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition but permitted the petitioners to pursue an appropriately pleaded proceeding.

Liberty was granted to each petitioner to file a fresh petition containing correct and complete particulars of the lands covered by the 2012 acquisition notifications, an explanation for the 14-year delay, and a clear statement regarding any award or compensation determination made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.