Dismissed

Suneel Sharma and 26 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC23 May 2022WRIC/27658/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of a belated claim for compensation regarding land taken by the PWD in 1980-82 without formal acquisition. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the delay of over 40 years without satisfactory explanation constituted laches and was not maintainable, following Supreme Court and High Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing the order rejecting compensation claim and for awarding compensation is dismissed.

Suneel Sharma and 26 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Chief Justice’s Court Additional Cause List Serial No.31

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶3

*******

¶4

Writ C No. - 27658 of 2020

¶5

Decided on May 23, 2022

¶6

Suneel Sharma and others

¶7

Through:- Mr. Rajiv Gupta, Advocate.

¶8

v/s

¶9

State of U.P. and others

¶10

Through:- Mr. Hare Ram, Standing Counsel for respondents

¶11

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

¶12

ORDER

¶13

By means of present petition, the petitioners, who are 27 in numbers, are seeking to quash the order dated January 27, 2020 passed by Executive Engineer, respondent no. 2 vide which the claim of the petitioners for grant of compensation at a belated stage, has been rejected.

¶14

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are stated to be the recorded owners of the respective land in village Laliyana as bhumidhar with transferable rights. It is stated that the land of the petitioners were taken by the Public Works Department in the year 1980-82 for construction of inter-district road Baghpat-Chamrawal - Banthla through village Laliyana, without adopting any acquisition process as well as without paying any compensation thereof. It is further stated that neither any compensation were paid to their ancestors nor to the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved, the ancestors of the

¶15

2 Writ C No. - 27658 of 2020

¶16

petitioners made representation before the concerned authority in the year 1989 but of no avail.

¶17

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents, without adopting proper procedure of acquisition, had taken their ancestral property and no compensation thereof has been awarded/ paid to the petitioners. The respondent no.2 has failed to consider the said fact in the impugned order dated January 27, 2020 He prays for allowing the present petition as well as awarding adequate compensation of their land used for construction of interdistrict road.

¶18

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel opposes the said prayer and submitted that at the belated stage, the compensation cannot be awarded.

¶19

After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records.

¶20

It is not in dispute that inter-district road was constructed in the year 1980-82. The petitioners have sought to raise the issue regarding payment of compensation after about four decades. No plausible explanation has been furnished for raising the issue for payment of compensation after such a belated stage. Further, no satisfactory explanation has been furnished to the effect that the ancestors of the petitioners had approached the appropriate authority under the relevant provision regarding non-payment of compensation, except a letter of the year 1989 (without any receipt thereof) and that too after ten years. The issue regarding payment of compensation has now been made after a lapse of about 40 years.

¶21

Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharastra Vs. Digambar, AIR 1995 SC 1991 has dismissed the claim of compensation being made after 20 years of the alleged transfer of possession, on account of delay and laches as the land owners had failed to explain the delay. Relevant part of the judgement is quoted below:-

¶22

3 Writ C No. - 27658 of 2020

¶23

“In our view, the above allegation is 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 occured 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 occured 20 years earlier, and the State's noncompliance 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 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 Governmental 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.”

¶24

Similar issue came up before Pubjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 26060 of 2015 titled as Azad Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 27.4.2017, in which the Court had dismissed the petition holding that forefather of the petitioners, during their lifetime, when the land was taken for construction of canal, had never raised any objection thus the issue cannot be permitted to be raised after more than 65 years.

¶25

In the case in hand, the petitioners are claiming compensation for the alleged utilization of land for construction of inter-District road after more than 40 years. Further the petitioners had

¶26

4 Writ C No. - 27658 of 2020

¶27

also not whispered a word that when the petitioners inherited the land in question and why they kept mum for about 40 years after the land being taken for construction of inter-District road by the Public Works Department.

¶28

Further, the petitioners have failed to disclose the reasons as well as brought on record any material to justify the delay and latches for raising their claim in respect of payment of compensation in such a belated stage. Thus, after such a long delay, the claim regarding payment of compensation cannot be entertained.

¶29

In view of above, no interference is called for by this Court. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶30

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶31

(Piyush Agrawal) (Rajesh Bindal) Judge Chief Justice Allahabad May 23, 2022 Rahul Dwivedi/-

¶32

Whether the order is speaking: Yes

¶33

Digitally signed by RAHUL DWIVEDI Date: 2022.05.24 11:14:31 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Suneel Sharma and 26 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suneel Sharma and 26 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Devesh Singh and 180 Others Vs State of U.P. through Secretary, Panchayat Raj and 3 Others

Avneesh Singh and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Palvindar Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bushra Firdaus Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Shilpee Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Nanak Chand and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.and 2 Others