1. Landowners challenge compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act via special leave petitions filed after an inordinate delay of approximately twenty-one years. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 955
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, S. ABDUL NAZEER, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
Baljeet Singh (Dead) through Lrs. and others etc. etc. – Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others – Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 30404-30442 of 2017 With Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 30455-30460 of 2017, Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 23522-23530 of 2018
Decided On : 08-08-2019
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rishi Malhotra, AOR Mr. Prem Malhotra, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ravindra Kumar, AOR Mr. Anuvrat Sharma, AOR Ms. Tulika Prakash, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rishi Malhotra, AOR Mr. Prem Malhotra, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ravindra Kumar, AOR Mr. Anuvrat Sharma, AOR Ms. Tulika Prakash, AOR
IMPORTANT POINT
Delay of 7534, 7542 and 7886 days without any sufficient cause cannot be condoned.
Headnote:
Administration of justice - Delay and latches - SLP - Delay of 7534, 7542 and 7886 days in filing the three SLPs - Dispute of fair compensation for acquired lands - Petitioners not making any objection and acquiesced for 21 years - No sufficient cause shown for the inordinate delay - Claim becoming stale - Lost their claim. (Para 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners have prayed for condonation of a delay 7534, 7542 and 7886 days in filing SLPs,
Finding of the Court:
Delay cannot be condoned.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners seek parity in compensation with another village; respondents oppose condonation of delay citing acquiescence, lack of sufficient cause, and potential cascading financial effects. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. The petitioners failed to show sufficient cause for the twenty-one-year delay, having acquiesced to the High Court's order and failing to plead poverty or financial hardship. (Para 7 , 9 )
4. A right not exercised for an unreasonable period without justifiable explanation is non-existent under the doctrines of laches, delay, and acquiescence. (Para 8 )
5. Applications for condonation of delay are dismissed, and the special leave petitions are dismissed as barred by limitation. (Para 10 )
6. What is required for a court to condone an inordinate delay in filing a legal proceeding?
The applicant must demonstrate a sufficient cause or justifiable reason that prevented them from initiating proceedings within the prescribed limitation period; otherwise, the delay may be attributed to gross negligence. (Para 8 )
7. How does the doctrine of acquiescence affect a party's right to challenge a judgment?
If a party fails to object to an alleged wrong or judgment for a long period, they are presumed to have acquiesced to it, thereby losing their right to complain. (Para 8 )
8. What is the legal effect of failing to exercise a legal right for a prolonged period?
Under the doctrine of laches and delay, a legal right that is not exercised for a long time is considered non-existent, based on sound public policy. (Para 8 )
9. Can parity in compensation be claimed based on awards given to landowners of a different village acquired under a different notification?
Such claims may be rejected if there is an inordinate delay, different acquisition notifications, different locations, and potential cascading financial burdens on the acquiring body. (Para 9 )
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
Delay of 193, 224 and 142 days respectively in refiling the special leave petitions is condoned.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common impugned judgment and order dated 2.4.1996 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in First Appeal No. 919/1993 and other allied first appeals, the respective original claimants – land owners have preferred the present special leave petitions.
3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that there is an inordinate delay of 7534, 7542 and 7886 days respectively (approximately 21 years) in preferring the special leave petitions before this Court challenging the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court. There is a further delay of 193, 224 and 142 days respectively in refiling the special leave petitions.
3.1. The application/applications for condonation of delay is/are vehemently opposed by the respondents herein. Therefore, this Court is first required to consider and decide the application/applications submitted by the petitioners/applicants praying to condone the huge delay of 7534, 7542 and 7886 days respectively in preferring the special leave petitions.
4. Shri Rishi Malhotra, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respective petitioners has vehemently submitted that the lands of the respective petitioners have been compulsorily acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, and therefore, they are entitled to the fair compensation for the lands acquired. It is submitted that the dispute is with respect to the lands acquired of village Gulsitapur and Tilpta which are only 4 kms. away from village Kasna. It is submitted that the location wise the lands of village Gulsitapur and Tilpta were better located and were abutting the national highway, i.e., Noida – Dadri Road. It is submitted that village Kasna is 4 kms. behind village Gulsitapur. It is submitted that for the lands acquired of village Kasna, Section 4 notification was issued on 1.3.1989 and the compensation was awarded @ Rs.65/- per square yard, which has been confirmed by this Court vide order dated 05.12.2016. It is submitted that therefore the respective petitioners are entitled to the fair compensation for the lands acquired of village Gulsitapur and Tilpta at par with the land owners of village Kasna, i.e., at Rs.65/-per square yard. It is submitted that therefore the agriculturists/farmers are entitled to the fair compensation for the lands acquired. It is submitted that for the lands compulsorily acquired, the delay should not defeat the valuable rights of the petitioners to get fair compensation. It is submitted that the petitioners may not be awarded the interest and other statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act for the period of delay.
4.1 Making the above submissions and relying upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of Market Committee, Hodal v. Krishan Murari reported in (1996) 1 SCC 311; Dhiraj Singh v. State of Haryana reported in (2014) 14 SCC 127; and K. Subbarayudu v. Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) reported in (2017) 12 SCC 840, it is prayed to condone the delay and consider the special leave petitions on merits.
5. All these applications are vehemently opposed by the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of respondent no.3 – Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation (UPSIDC) and on behalf of respondent no.4 – Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority. Counter affidavits are filed on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4 opposing the present applications for condonation of delay.
5.1 It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that there is an inordinate delay of approximately 21 years in preferring the special leave petitions. It is submitted that at no point of time earlier the respective petitioners made any grievance with respect to inadequacy of the compensation as awarded by the High Court.
5.2 It is further submitted by the learned counsel ap
