Delay and laches cannot bar compensation claims for land taken without due process, as constitutional rights must be upheld.

JUDGMENT :

(per M.S. Sonak, J.)

1. Heard Mr Sabban for the petitioners, Mr Chavan for respondents 2 and 3 and Mr Deolekar learned AGP for the respondent-State.

2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

3. Mr Sabban points out that the first petitioner has expired, and the second petitioner is the brother of the first petitioner. The third petitioner is the wife of the first petitioner’s deceased brother. Mr Sabban craves leave to delete the first petitioner from the cause title.

4. Accordingly, leave is granted. A necessary amendment is to be carried out in the cause title forthwith. Reverification is dispensed with.

5. The petitioners were the owners of the property admeasuring H.09=35=06 Ares surveyed under No.505/A, Village - Bedisgaon, Taluka- Shahapur, District – Thane (said property). In 1976-77, the respondents took possession of the petitioners’ property and constructed a minor percolation tank despite opposition from the petitioners. By communications dated 10 May 2011, 04 June 2011, 19 July 2011 and 14 July 2011, which have been placed on record by the petitioners, respondents 2 and 3 informed the petitioners that land acquisition proceedings would be initiated following law and compensation would be paid to the petitioners. The communication dated 10 May 2011 and 14 November 2011, addressed by the Deputy Engineer, confirmed that the petitioners’ land was not acquired, though possession was taken over.

6. The petitioners were pursuing the matter of the acquisition, but since the second and third respondents were taking no steps for acquisition and payment of compensation, this petition was instituted seeking the following substantive relief:-

“(a) This Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction or order directing the respondent authorities to inspect & verify the Petitioners land area submerged in the Bedisgaon Percolation Tank Project, about 6 Acres of the Petitioners lands situated at Survey No. 505/A, at Bedisgaon, Taluka - Shahapur, District - Thane, and to acquire the land in accordance with law, the possession of which is already taken in 1976-77.”

7. Mr Asif Abbas Sayyed, Sub-Divisional Water Conservator Officer, has filed an affidavit on behalf of the second respondent. In the affidavit, the main grounds urged are delay and laches. There is no denying that the petitioners’ land was taken over for the construction of Bedisgaon Percolation Tank project, and the petitioners’ land had already been submerged. The respondents have contended that according to the prevailing policy, the villagers used to spontaneously give their land free of charge for public works undertaken under the employment guaranteed scheme. The reliance is placed on the Government Resolution (G.R.) dated 26 October 2010, which states that if there is no demand for compensation for considerable time, there is room to assume that the landowners have waived their right to receive compensation. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of Maharashtra Vs. Digambar, (1995) 4 Supreme Court Cases 683

8. Mr Sabban, learned counsel for the petitioners, relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Tukaram Kanha Joshi vs. M.I.D.C., AIR 2013 SC 565 and Sukh Dutt Ratra Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2022 4 SCC 427 and the decisions of the division bench of this Court in the case of Rajeev Kumar Damodarprasad Bhadani and Ors. Vs. The Executive Engineer, MSEDCL and Ors., 2024 0 Supreme(Bom) 31 and Vasant B Wale Vs. Vithal M Deshkumh, 2006 (1) Bom.C.R. 669 to submit that in such matters, the rights of land owners whose property has been deprived without following the due process of law cannot be defeated on the grounds of delay and laches.

9. Mr Sabban submitted that there was no delay and laches involved in the facts of this case. He submitted that in the