Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.S.GADKARI, KAMAL KHATA
Laxman Atmaram Niman(Pawar) (since deceased through his legal heir) – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Collector, Rehabilitation, Raigad – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A.S. GADKARI, J.
1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of learned Advocates for respective parties taken up for hearing.
2) By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: -
“(a)This Hon’ble Court may, to direct the Additional Collector, Satara to prepare the report regarding the Petitioner’s proposal and send to the Additional Collector, Raigad.
(b) This Hon’ble Court may, by way of appropriate writ Order or direction, direct the Additional Collector, Raigad to process the Petitioner’s application dated August 08, 2022 and allot land as prayed for, if the Petitioner is entitled to get alternate land as prayed for, within a period of three weeks from the date of Order of this Hon’ble Court;”
2.1) In our view, the above prayers are ambiguous, rather unusual. The pleadings in the Petition are equally vague and do not disclose the legal basis for the reliefs sought particularly after a lapse of or inordinate delay of 63 years.
3) It is the case of the Petitioner that, the lands of his predecessors were acquired for Koyna Project, Satara and an Award in respect thereof was declared on 15th
Writ petition dismissed due to inordinate 63-year delay and laches; rehabilitation statutes lack retrospective effect on prior land acquisition awards attaining finality.
Claims for alternate rehabilitation land under 1999 Act barred by 45-50 year delay and laches from 1972/1977 acquisitions, original owners' acceptance of compensation without protest, and non-retrosp....
Where the deprivation of property without sanction of law is admitted and clearly established, there is no difficulty in applying above principle and, as such, a petition for compensation cannot be d....
Timely challenges are essential in land acquisition disputes; relief cannot be granted due to inordinate delay as established by the court's reaffirmation of the principle of laches.
It is well-settled that under Article 226, power of High Court to issue an appropriate writ is discretionary.
The delay in challenging acquisition proceedings and the impact on third-party rights can weigh against quashing the proceedings, even if the award has been passed beyond the stipulated period.
The principle that delay and laches may result in the refusal of relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
It is well settled that where no time limit is specified, whatever is required to be done should be within a reasonable period.
The court ruled that inordinate delay and lack of diligence by petitioners preclude the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in land acquisition matters.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
