Petitioners filed a writ petition seeking compensation for land acquired about 55 years ago. The court dismissed the petition due to excessive delay and laches, noting the Petitioners failed to establish entitlement after a dismissed civil suit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
wp1833.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.1833 OF 2016
1) Vitthalsing s/o Mahadusing Shewal, Age-58 years, Occu:Service & Agri.,2) Kapursing s/o Mahadusing Shewal, Age-54 years, Occu:Service & Agri.,3) Padamsing s/o Mahadusing Shewal, Age-53 years, Occu:Agriculturist,4) Madansing s/o Mahadusing Shewal, Age-48 years, Occu:Service & Agri.,Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 R/o-Bramhani,
Tq-Kannad, Dist-Aurangabad.
5) Smt. Rukhamanbai Gulabsing Ghusinge, Age-45 years, Occu:Household, R/o-Hajipurwadi, Tq-Vaijapur, Dist-Aurangabad....PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Forest and Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai,2) The Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Division Aurangabad, Aurangabad,3) The Collector, Collectorate Office, Aurangabad, Dist-Aurangabad,wp1833.16
2
4) The Deputy Collector, Vaijapur, Dist-Aurangabad,5) The Tahasildar, Kannad, Tq-Kannad, Dist-Aurangabad,6) The Talathi, Saja Bramhani, Tq-Kannad, Dist-Aurangabad,7) Krushi Beej Gunan Kendra, Narsingpur, Through Taluka Agriculture Office,
Tq-Kannad, Dist-Aurangabad.
...RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.Arvind R. Kawade Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr.S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for Respondents.
...
CORAM: R.M. BORDE AND
A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ.
DATE : 18TH FEBRUARY, 2016
ORDER :
1. The Petitioners are claiming compensation
in respect of the land stated to have been
acquired long back, i.e. about 55 years ago.
According to the Petitioners, their father was
tenant in respect of the land. Initially the land
acquisition proceedings were stated to have been
wp1833.16
3
initiated in the year 1961, however, according to
the Petitioners, the proceedings were not pursued.
It does appear on perusal of the record that name
of the Seed Farm appears in the 7 X 12 extract
from 1966-67 onwards.
2.Apart from this the Petitioners presented
suit being Regular Civil Suit No.322 of 2004
claiming declaration and mandatory injunction
directing the Respondents to return the land. The
suit presented by the Petitioners came to be
dismissed by the Civil Court by order dated 25th
February 2005 primarily on account of failure of
Petitioners to prove their entitlement to the
land.
3.The Petitioners claim that after
dismissal of the said suit, they have discovered
certain record which shows entitlement of their
father in respect of the land, in his capacity as
a tenant. On considerations of the documentary
wp1833.16
4
evidence placed on record and after hearing the
Petitioners, it does appear that the possession of
the property has been taken way back in the year
1966-67 for the purpose of establishing seed farm.
The Petitioners did not raise any dispute from
1966-67 onwards until date of presentation of the
suit in the year 2004. Even after dismissal of the
suit in the year 2005, Petitioners have approached
this Court after lapse of more than ten years. In
view of delay laches and considering the fact that
the Petitioners failed to establish their
entitlement, in the suit, instant Petition need
not be entertained, since it has been presented
after more than 55 years from the date of accrual
of the cause of action.
4.The Petitioners have placed reliance on
the Judgment in the case of Tukaram Kana Joshi and
others through Power of Attorney Holder vs.
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and
others, (2013) Supreme Court Cases 353. The facts
wp1833.16
5
giving rise to the said matter are different than
the facts of the present matter.
5.The Judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case ofState of Maharashtra vs. Digambar,
(1995) 4 Supreme Court Cases 683 can be pressed
into service, wherein the Apex Court refused to
entertain grievance of Petitioner before Supreme
Court on account of unexplained delay and laches
in approaching Court.
6.In exercise of extra ordinary writ
jurisdiction of this Court, no interference is
warranted. The Writ Petition stands dismissed.
[A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.] [R.M. BORDE, J.]
asb/FEB16
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court is warranted to entertain a writ petition for compensation regarding land acquisition proceedings initiated over 55 years ago.
Whether the significant delay of over 55 years and failure to establish entitlement justifies dismissal of the petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Tukaram Kana Joshi and others through Power of Attorney Holder vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and othersReferred¶4
(2013) Supreme Court Cases 353
State of Maharashtra vs. DigambarReferred¶5
(1995) 4 Supreme Court Cases 683
Vitthalsing s/o Mahadusing Shewal
Kapursing s/o Mahadusing Shewal
Padamsing s/o Mahadusing Shewal
Madansing s/o Mahadusing Shewal
Rukhamanbai Gulabsing Ghusinge
State of Maharashtra
R.M. BORDE
A.I.S. CHEEMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court