Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.
On the Death of Hemanta Kumar Mandal, His Legal Heirs Rep. S/o Late Ganesh Mandal – Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India and Others – Respondents
WP (C) No. 2904 of 2015
Decided On : 13-06-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226, 300A - National Highways Act, 1956 - Land acquired - Value of land - Compensation - Petition seeking setting aside and quashing of an order passed - Direction sought to respondent authorities to pay petitioners a sum by taking into account fact that Deputy Commissioner, vide a Notification had notified zonal value of land – A complete silence and inaction on part of original writ petitioner no. 1 and others for a period of more than four decades is clearly demonstrative of inexplicable and inordinate delay and laches on their part - Para 36.
Finding of the Court: Petitioners made a representation in matter of compensation against their lands in 1960s, Court has not found any explanation whatsoever in pleadings of petition as to why petitioners had waited for an inordinately long period more than four decades in staking their claims for compensation against lands purportedly belonging to them, which were made Government lands in revenue records in 1960s - State due to laches or undue delay on part of person seeking relief, may not be able to show that executive action complained of was legal or correct for want of records pertaining to action for officers who were responsible for such action not being available later on - Petitioners have fallen short to explain inordinate delay of more than four/five decades - Petitioners are not entitled to revive an issue which was already stale due to inordinate and inexplicable delay and laches on their part and, thus, Court is of unhesitant view that such stale claim which is solely attributable petitioners, cannot be allowed to be revived - Thus, There is no good reason to interfere with impugned Order as petition itself has suffered from inexplicable and inordinate delay in laches
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.
1. The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been instituted seeking inter-alia setting aside and quashing of an order bearing no. RLA.134/2003/Pt.-I/282 dated 10.03.2015 (Annexure-18 to the writ petition) passed by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue & Disaster Management Department. A direction is also sought to the respondent authorities to pay the petitioners a sum of Rs. 5,97,75,000/- by taking into account the fact that the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta vide a Notification dated 28.03.2014, had notified the zonal value of land in respect of Barpeta Road Town @ Rs. 75,00,000/- per Bigha. A further direction is sought for to pay interest @ 9% per annum till the date of actual payment on the premise that a parcel of land measuring 7 Bighass 4 Kathas 17 Lessas (07B-04K-17L), purportedly belonging to the petitioners previously, had been illegally acquired by the State respondents, more particularly, the Public Works Department (PWD) in the year 1962-1964 for the purpose of construction of 31 no. National Highway, without paying any compensation against such acquisition.
2. The original writ petitioners were: (i) Hemanta Kumar Mandal; (ii) Ananta Kumar Mandal; (iii) Shyam Sunder Kshatriya; (iv) Sunil Ranbongshi; (v) Dhirendra Das; and (vi) Gobinda Mandal. During the pendency of the writ petition, the original writ petitioner no. 1 viz. Hemanta Kumar Mandal died on 13.05.2017 leaving behind four sons as his legal representatives viz. (i) Sri Amar Chand Mandal; (ii) Sri Uttam Kumar Mandal; (iii) Sri Gautam Kumar Mandal; and (iv) Sri Nathuram Mandal, who have been substituted as the petitioner no. 1.1, the petitioner no. 1.2, the petitioner no. 1.3, and the petitioner no. 1.4 respectively in place of the original writ petitioner no. 1, pursuant to an order dated 11.02.2019 passed in an interlocutory application, I.A.(C) no. 4297/2018, filed for such substitution. The original writ petitioner no. 5 viz. Dhirendra Das also expired during the pendency of the writ petition, on 11.04.2017, leaving behind his wife viz. Smti. Shyamala Das and one son viz. Sri Ajit Das as his legal representatives, who have been substituted as the petitioner no. 5.1 and the petitioner no. 5.2 by the an order dated 11.02.2019 passed in an interlocutory application, I.A.(C) no. 4297/2018, filed for such substitution.
3. It is projected that the petitioners were the owners of a parcel of land measuring 7 Bighas 4 Kathas 17 Lessas (07B-04K-17L) and the same was a part of a total area of land measuring 11 Bighas 4 Kathas 2 Lesass (11B-04K-02L). Though in the body of the writ petition, no further details of the said parcel of land are mentioned, it is canvassed that the parcel of land located in Revenue Village - Barpeta Kalahabhanga Road, Barnagar Revenue Circle, District - Barpeta, Assam, came to be acquired during the period: 1962-1964 for the purpose of construction of 31 no. National Highway with an assurance that the petitioners would be paid adequate compensation for such acquisition. According to the petitioners, when the compensation amounts were not paid to them, they had to approach the respondent authorities from time to time but no fruitful results were found forthcoming from such approaches. It is claimed that the petitioners had approached the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta through one entity, Barpeta District Four Lane Effected Co-Ordination Committee in the year 1990 by way of a Representation (Annexure-2 to the writ petition).
4. From the case papers, it can be noticed that the matter regarding alleged non-payment of compensation started being examined by the respondent authorities only from the year 2010 onwards when the petitioners submitted a Representation before the Minister, Revenue, Assam in and around December, 2010 vide Annexure-3. On the Annexure-3, an endorsement dated 14.12.2010 of the Minister, Revenue, Assam could be seen and the end
It is well-settled that under Article 226, power of High Court to issue an appropriate writ is discretionary.
Article 300A only limits powers of State that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.
(1) State cannot shield itself behind ground of delay and laches in such a situation – There cannot be a limitation to doing justice.(2) Acquisition of land – Nobody can be deprived of liberty or pro....
The right to property under Article 300-A mandates compensation for land acquisition, and the State cannot deprive landowners of their property without due process and compensation.
The State cannot take possession of land without compensation, and delay cannot bar justice in land acquisition cases.
The right to property is a constitutional right under Article 300-A, and deprivation without due process is violative of human rights.
Forcible dispossession without due process violates constitutional rights, necessitating initiation of acquisition proceedings and compensation regardless of alleged delay.
Forcible dispossession of property without due process violates constitutional rights; delay and laches are not applicable in cases of continuing cause of action.
Landowners cannot be deprived of their property without due process and just compensation, regardless of implied consent due to prolonged silence on compensation claims.
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
