Unexplained delay in claiming compensation for land acquisition extinguishes rights; claimants must establish ownership and acquisition through evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Suman Shyam, J.

1. This intra-court appeal has been preferred by the appellants, who were the writ petitioners, being aggrieved by the judgement and order dated 13/06/2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 2904/2015, dismissing the writ petition primarily on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the petitioners, in approaching the Court. By filing the above mentioned writ petition, the petitioners had assailed the order dated 10/03/2015, by means of which, their prayer for payment of compensation for the alleged acquisition of land for construction of 31 No. National Highway at Barpeta Road was rejected by the authorities.

2. The facts and circumstances of the case, in a nutshell, are that the predecessor-in- interest of appellant nos. 1 (I), (II) and (III) viz. late Hemanta Kumar Mandal along with the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant No. 2 (iv) (a) & (b) i.e. late Dhirendra Das and 4 others, had jointly instituted WP(C) No. 2904/2015 inter alia, contending that land measuring 7 Bighas 4 Kathas 17 Lechas forming part and parcel of land measuring 11 Bighas 04 Kathas 02 Lechas, belonging to them had been acquired by the State for construction of National Highway No. 31 without paying any compensation. The request made by the appellants/petitioners for payment of compensation was rejected by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, by the impugned order dated 10/03/2015, issued under Memo No. RLA.134/2003/Pt-I/282, which was put under challenge in the writ petition. Contending that the value of land in the Barpeta Road town area had been notified on 28/03/2014 to be Rs. 75 lakhs per bigha, the appellants had jointly prayed for a Writ of Mandamus for payment of a sum of Rs. 5,97,75,000/- to them as compensation for the land.

3. From a scrutiny of the case record, it appears that the claim of the writ appellants was based on few departmental communications including the communications dated 23/12/2010 and 08/08/2011 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) issued by the Circle Officer, Barnagar Revenue Circle, as well as the letter dated 26.08.2013 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Barpeta requesting the Project Director (PIU) NHAI to place the proposal for payment of compensation before the competent authority.

4. The learned Single Judge was of the view that although National Highway No. 31 was constructed way back in the year 1962, the writ petitioners had admittedly remained silent until the year 2010. It was only in the year 2010 they had submitted a representation before the Minister of Revenue, Assam, praying for payment of compensation for acquisition of land. Hence, it was a case of un-explained delay of more than 50 years in raising the claim, thus extinguishing the rights, if any, of the writ petitioner for payment of compensation. While arriving at the above conclusion, the learned Single Judge had extensively dealt with the documents available on record as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Premchand and others Vs. Union of India reported in 2010:INSC:181 : (2010) 4 SCC 551; State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Ahmed Jaan reported in 2008:INSC:929 : (2008) 14 SCC 582; Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and another Vs. Dolly Das reported in (1999) 4 SCC 450; Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M.P.V. Engg. Industries reported in 2003:INSC:164 : (2003) 5 SCC 333; Vidya Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in 2020:INSC:23 : (2020) 2 SCC 569; Sukh Dutt Ratra and another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others reported in 2022:INSC:394 : (2022) 7 SCC 508; State of Maharashtra Vs. Digambar reported in 1995:INSC:371 : (1995) 4 SCC 683 and Tukaram Kanha Joshi Vs. MIDC reported in 2012:INSC:503 : (2013) 1 SCC 353 to hold that the writ petition was devoid of any merit.

5. Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously argued that depriving his clients of valuable immovable property wit