Back
2022 Supreme(Jhk) 558
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
Mahabir Mishra - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 2306 of 2022
Decided on : 27-09-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Zaid Imam, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Mr. Gyan Ranjan Nath Shahdeo, Adv.
The court does not come to the aid of a lethargic litigant when exercising its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
Compensation - Land Acquisition - Failure to Provide Translated Title Document - Dismissal of Writ Petition
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash an order rejecting his application for consideration of his land acquisition and for direction to consider his case with respect to acquisition of the land, claiming that the title document was written in 'Bangla' script.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to submit any document in support of his lawful title over the land in question, despite being given the opportunity to do so. The court held that the petitioner's failure to obtain the translated copy of the title document was his own responsibility and that the court does not come to the aid of a lethargic litigant.
Issues: Failure to provide translated title document, Lethargy of the petitioner in obtaining necessary documents
Ratio Decidendi: The court's power to issue a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and cannot be exercised to assist a lethargic litigant.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing order dated 12.12.2019 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 2 – the Divisional Railway Manager (Engineering), South Eastern Railway, Chakradharpur, whereby the petitioner’s application for consideration of his case with respect to acquisition of his land appertaining to Old Khata No. 1, Old Plot No. 1, Village-Susnigaria has been rejected. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner’s case with respect to acquisition of the said land keeping in view that the document of title is written in ‘Bangla’ script and to pay appropriate compensation to him in lieu of the said acquisition.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the content of the writ petition. It appears that the petitioner earlier moved before this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2191 of 2019 seeking direction to restrain the concerned railway authorities from acquiring his aforesaid land. The said writ petition was disposed of by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.11.2019 giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Divisional Railway Manager, South Eastern Railway, Chakradharpur (the respondent no. 2) by filing a representation with relevant documents within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order and the respondent no. 2, in turn, was directed to take decision in the said matter strictly in accordance with law within a period of two weeks thereafter.
3. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the said order dated 20.11.2019, he filed a representation dated 23.11.2019 before the respondent no. 2, however, the said respondent informed the petitioner vide letter dated 12.12.2019 that since he did not submit any document in support of his lawful title over the land in question, it was not possible to take any decision on the same within the timeframe as stipulated by this Court vide order dated 20.11.2019. The petitioner thereafter filed a contempt case being Contempt Case (Civil) No. 126/2020 for initiating a contempt proceeding against the respondent no. 2, which was disposed of by the National Lok Adalat (Virtual) vide order dated 10.07.2021 closing the said contempt case observing that the order had been complied by the said respondent. However, it was left open for the petitioner to assail the order as contained in letter dated 12.12.2019 before the appropriate forum/court.
4. It thus appears that though the petitioner filed a representation before the respondent no. 2 in pursuance of liberty given to him vide order dated 20.11.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2191 of 2019, yet he did not submit any document in support of his claim of lawful title over the same, which led to passing of the impugned order dated 12.12.2019 by the respondent no. 2. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner could not obtain the translated copy of the title document relating to the land in question, the original of which was in ‘Bangla’ script, at the time of filing of the representation before the respondent no. 2 and, therefore, the said respondent may again be directed to take appropriate decision on the petitioner’s claim for compensation in lieu of acquisition of the said land.
5. I find no substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner as the petitioner should have been ready with the translated copy of the title document relating to the land in question at the stage he was being dispossessed from the same by the railway authorities or at least before representing the respondent no. 2 in terms with order dated 20.11.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2191 of 2019. The petitioner himself can be said to be responsible for this situation. If the petitioner had sought compensation in lieu of acquisition of the land in question, he should have been prompt enough to get the required documents ready including the authentic transla
