Dismissed

Sidharth Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC14 Feb 2022WRIC/2528/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petitioners' writ petition seeking compensation for alleged state occupation of their ancestral land. Rejecting the claim due to a delay of over 50 years, the Court relied on Supreme Court precedent establishing that such massive delay causes the petition to be barred by laches.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition for award of compensation was dismissed.

Sidharth Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Chief Justice's Court Serial No. 7

¶2

**HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD *****

¶3

WRIT - C No. - 2528 of 2022

¶4

Sidharth Singh and another

¶5

.....Petitioners

¶6

Through :- Mr. Nipun Singh, Advocate

¶7

v/s

¶8

State of U.P. and others

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

Through :- Mr. A.K. Roy, Additional Chief Standing Counsel, for respondents no. 1 and 5, Mr. M.J. Akhtar, Advocate, for respondents no. 2, Mr. P.K. Shukla, Advocate, for respondent no. 4.

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, JUDGE

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated November 19, 2020 vide which the claim of the petitioners for payment of compensation on account of alleged occupation of the land owned by the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners, by the State was rejected.

¶14

It is the case of the petitioners that Late Bireshwari Prasad Narayan Singh, their predecessor-in-interest, was owner of the land. However, he had gone abroad more than 40 years back and settled there. The petitioners are living in India. They are stated to be settled in Bengaluru. They took note of the land only after the death of Late Bireshwari Prasad Narayan Singh on May 16, 2014. The claim is that the land having been taken by the State without acquisition, they are entitled to receive compensation.

¶15

On the other hand, the stand taken by learned counsel for respondents no. 1 to 5 is that the possession of the land was taken partially by U.P. Jal Nigam, partially by Vidyut Vitaran Khand and partially by Nagar Palika Parishad and land in question was acquired way back in 1970, and, now after more than 50 years the petitioners are

¶16

2 WRIC No. 2528 of 2022

¶17

not entitled for any relief. In support of his arguments, reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Maharastra Vs. Digambar, AIR 1995 SC 1991 . Reliance is also placed on a Division Bench judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No.4790 of 2015, Dharambir and others Versus State of Haryana and others , decided on 3.9.2015.

¶18

After giving our thoughtful considerations to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the writ petition is completely devoid of any merit and thus, the same deserves to be dismissed for the following reasons:

¶19

Issue regarding delay in filing petition for similar relief came up for consideration before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Digambar's case (supra) where the allegation was that some land owned by the parties there was utilized in the year 1971-72 without acquisition, but the writ petition was filed claiming compensation in the year 1991. The same was dismissed on account of delay and laches as the land owners therein had failed to explain the delay of 20 years in filing the petition. The judgment of Bombay High Court was reversed where it had directed for grant of compensation. The relevant part thereof is extracted below:

¶20

“25. In our view, the above allegation in no way sufficient to hold that the writ petitioner (respondent here) has explained properly and satisfactorily the undue delay of 20 years which had occurred between the alleged taking of possession of his land and the date of filing of writ petition in the High court. We cannot overlook the fact that it is easy to make such kind of allegations against anybody that too against the State. When such general allegation is made against a State in relation to an event said to have occurred 20 years earlier, and the State's non-compliance with petitioners demands, State may not at all be in a position to dispute such allegation, having regard to the manner in which it is required to carry on its

¶21

3 WRIC No. 2528 of 2022

¶22

governmental functions. Undue delay of 20 years on the part of the writ petitioner, in invoking the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for grant of compensation to his land alleged to have been taken by the Government agencies, would suggest that his land was not taken at all, or if it had been taken it could not have been taken without his consent or if it was taken against his consent he had acquiesced in such taking and waived his right to take compensation for it." (emphasis supplied)

¶23

Similar issue came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in Dharambir's case (supra) wherein the writ petitioner claiming compensation for alleged utilisation of land for construction of irrigation channel in the year 1953, filed in the year 2015 after 60 years was dismissed. It was observed therein that post independence there being few options form irrigation available, the inhabitants of the villages used to offer land to the State free of cost for providing infrastructural facilities such as construction of minor or road. Source of irrigation was more valuable than the value of land at that time, as it provided source of livelihood.

¶24

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking the above authorities into account, in our opinion, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. The stand taken by the respondents is that possession of the land was taken about 40-50 years back and no issue was raised by the then owner or the petitioners at any stage, except the representation dated March 8, 2018. The land was earlier recorded in the name of the deceased Bireshwari Prasad Narayan Singh, who admittedly expired on May 16, 2014. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are living in Bengaluru, though it is claimed that Late Bireshwari Prasad Narayan Singh was living abroad.

¶25

Moreover, at this stage, after 50 years, no records will be available to justify any action. The petitioners had approached the authorities as well as this Court after huge delay.

¶26

4 WRIC No. 2528 of 2022

¶27

For the reasons mentioned above, in our opinion, no case is made out for interference in the present writ petition for award of compensation to petitioners. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶28

(Piyush Agrawal, J.) (Rajesh Bindal, C.J.)

¶29

Allahabad 14.02.2022 P.Sri./ Manish Himwan

¶30

Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No Whether the order is reportable :^√ Yes/No

Sidharth Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sidharth Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mashkoor Hasan Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Shatrudhan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs Ishan International Education Society

Photo Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shaikh Hajrat Ali and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Kalpnath Vs Union of India and 2 Others