Dismissed

Ram Avtar Sharma v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC7 Mar 2022WRIC/4796/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a 2012 order under the Land Acquisition Act. The court held that the petition, filed over a decade later without satisfactory explanation, was barred by laches and inordinate delay, citing Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the order dated February 10, 2012, was dismissed on the grounds of huge delay and laches.

Ram Avtar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Chief Justice's Court Serial No. 28

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶3

¶4

WRIT – C No. 4796 of 2022

¶5

Ram Avtar Sharma ...Petitioner

¶6

Through:- Mr. Ramesh Chandra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Narayan Dutt Shukla, Advocate

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

¶9

Through:- Mr. Ajai Prakash Paul, State Law Officer for respondents no. 1 and 2, Ms. Anjali Upadhya, Advocate for respondent no. 3

¶10

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

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Order dated February 10, 2012 passed by the Secretary, Department of Industrial Development, in terms of directions issued by this Court vide order dated September 20, 2010 passed in Writ-C No.55926 of 2010, titled as Ram Avtar Sharma v. State of U.P. and others, has been challenged by filing the present writ petition.

¶13

In terms of aforesaid directions, application filed by the petitioner under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was to be decided. The writ petition challenging the acquisition of land otherwise was dismissed.

¶14

After hearing learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, we do not find any case is made out for interference in the present writ

¶15

2 WRIT C No.4796 of 2022

¶16

petition, on account of huge delay and laches. The impugned order was passed by the Secretary of the Department concerned on February 10, 2012 and the writ petition has been filed more than a decade thereafter. As to how the petition, filed after huge delay, has to be dealt with has been considered by the Courts on number of occasions and the opinion expressed is that these petitions are required to be dismissed at the threshold.

¶17

In P. S. Sadasivasway v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152 , wherein it has been laid down that a person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his head should approach the court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time, but it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for the relief.

¶18

In New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh and others, (2007) 9 SCC 278 , the Court has opined that though there is no period of limitation provided for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet ordinarily a writ petition should be filed within a reasonable time. In the said case the respondents had filed the writ petition after seventeen years and the court, as stated earlier, took note of the delay and laches as relevant factors and set aside the order passed by the High Court which had exercised the discretionary jurisdiction.

¶19

In State of Uttaranchal and another v. Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and others 2013 (6) SLR 629, Hon'ble the Supreme Court, while considering the issue regarding delay and laches observed that even if there is no period prescribed for filing the writ petition under

¶20

3 WRIT C No.4796 of 2022

¶21

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet it should be filed within a reasonable time. Relief to a person, who puts forward a stale claim can certainly be refused relief on account of delay and laches. Anyone who sleeps over his rights is bound to suffer.

¶22

In Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others v. T. T. Murali Babu 2014 (4) SCC 108 , Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined as under:-

¶23

"13. First, we shall deal with the facet of delay. In Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Balwant Regular Motor Service, Amravati and others, AIR 1969 SC 329, the Court referred to the principle that has been stated by Sir Barnes Peacock in Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Prosper Armstrong Hurd, Abram Farewall, and John Kemp, (1874) 5 PC 221, which is as follows:-

¶24

"Now the doctrine of laches in Courts of Equity is not an arbitrary or a technical doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy, either because the party has, by his conduct, done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by his conduct and neglect he has, though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put the other party in a situation in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted in either of these cases, lapse of time and delay are most material. But in every case, if an argument against relief, which otherwise would be just, is founded upon mere delay, that delay of course not amounting to a bar by any statute of limitations, the validity of that

¶25

4 WRIT C No.4796 of 2022

¶26

defence must be tried upon principles substantially equitable. Two circumstances, always important in such cases, are, the length of the delay and the nature of the acts done during the interval, which might affect either party and cause a balance of justice or injustice in taking the one course or the other, so far as relates to the remedy."

¶27

In State of M. P. and others etc. etc. vs. Nandlal Jaiswal and others etc. etc., AIR 1987 SC 251, the Court observed that it is well settled that power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and the High Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. It has been further stated therein that if there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing a petition and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Emphasis was laid on the principle of delay and laches stating that resort to the extraordinary remedy under the writ jurisdiction at a belated stage is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in injustice.

¶28

Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate

¶29

5 WRIT C No.4796 of 2022

¶30

reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant “a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, "procrastination is the greatest thief of time" and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. ... A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent personswho compete with `Kumbhakarna' or for that matter 'Rip Van Winkle'. In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold."

¶31

In State of Jammu & Kashmir vs. R. K. Zalpuri and others 2015 (15) SCC 602 , Hon'ble the Supreme Court considered the issue regarding delay and laches in raising the dispute before the Court. It was opined that the issue sought to be raised by the petitioners therein was not required to be addressed on merits on account of delay and laches. The relevant paras thereof are extracted below:-

¶32

"27. The grievance agitated by the respondent did not deserve to be addressed on merits, for doctrine of delay and laches had already visited his claim like the chill of death which does not spare anyone even the one who fosters the idea and nurtures the attitude that he can sleep to avoid death and

¶33

6 WRIT C No.4796 of 2022

¶34

eventually proclaim "Deo gratias - thanks to God”.

¶35

Another aspect needs to be stated. A writ court while deciding a writ petition is required to remain alive to the nature of the claim and the unexplained delay on the part of the writ petitioner. Stale claims are not to be adjudicated unless non-interference would cause grave injustice. The present case, need less to emphasise, did not justify adjudication. It deserves to be thrown overboard at the very threshold, for the writ petitioner had accepted the order of dismissal for half a decade and cultivated the feeling that he could freeze time and forever remain in the realm of constant present."

¶36

The aforesaid view was followed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Chaman Rana 2018 (5) SCC 798 .

¶37

Subsequently, a Constitution Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation v. Shree Lal Meena (2019) 4 SCC 479 , considering the principle of delay and laches, opined as under:-

¶38

“36. We may also find that the appellant remained silent for years together and that this Court, taking a particular view subsequently, in Sheel Kumar Jain v. New India Assurance Company Limited, (2011)12 SCC 197 would not entitle stale claims to be raised on this behalf, like that of the appellant. In fact the appellant slept over the matter for almost a little over two years even after the pronouncement of the judgment.

¶39

Thus, the endeavour of the appellant, to approach this

¶40

7 WRIT C No.4796 of 2022

¶41

Court seeking the relief, as prayed for, is clearly a misadventure, which is liable to be rejected, and the appeal is dismissed.”

¶42

Recently, in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. And othyers v. Shyam Kishore Singh (Civil Appeal No.1009 of 2020, decided on 5.2.2020) , the issue regarding the delay and laches, was considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and a petition filed belatedly, seeking change in the date of birth in the service record, was dismissed.

¶43

Relying on T.T. Murali Babu’ case (supra) and R.K. Zalpuri’case (supra) , same view has been expressed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs. N. Murugesan and others (2022) 2 SCC 25 observing:

¶44

“We have already dealt with the principles of law that may have a bearing on this case. … there was an unexplained and studied reluctance to raise the issue .... Hence, on the principle governing delay, laches … Respondent No. 1 ought not to have been granted any relief by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

¶45

In the case in hand, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking the above authorities into account, in our opinion, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. It is, however, sought to be contended that the order dated February 10, 2012 was communicated vide Communication dated December 30, 2021, which is sought to be relied upon to show that the order was communicated to the petitioner quite late in the year 2021. However, a perusal thereof shows that it is not addressed to him. It is merely an inter-departmental communication from the Joint Secretary in the State of U.P. to the Greater NOIDA. In any case, the same cannot be taken to be a reasonable explanation for condoning huge delay

¶46

8 WRIT C No.4796 of 2022

¶47

in filing the present writ petition. In this case, the direction was issued by this Court about a decade back. The petitioner should have been vigilant and enquired about the status of the application filed by him before the competent authority. There is nothing on record to suggest that he ever made any representation or enquired about the order passed on his representation. In any case, the release of land under Section 48 of the Act is not a matter of right with the landowner. It is a power conferred on the Government.

¶48

For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶49

(Piyush Agrawal) (Rajesh Bindal) Judge Chief Justice

¶50

Allahabad March 7, 2022

¶51

Manish Himwan/Kuldeep

¶52

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

¶53

Digitally signed by MANISH HIMWAN Date: 2022.05.12 14:55:09 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Avtar Sharma v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Avtar Sharma v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjiv Kumar Singh Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Zaheer and 13 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Amrita Shailesh Chaturvedi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Devaki Nandan Shiksha Samiti Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Satendra Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mehkaur and Another Vs Union of India and 3 Others