Extraordinary writ jurisdiction is discretionary and should not be invoked after inordinate, unexplained delay. Claims left unexercised for several decades are barred by the doctrine of laches, as long-term silence creates a presumption of waiver and acquiescence, rendering the right legally unenforceable.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer

1. The present appeal has been filed under Clause-10 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 30.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1058 of 2024, whereby and where under, the learned Single Judge has been pleased to dismiss the writ petition solely on the ground that after lapse of 43 years from the date of payment of compensation, the writ petitioner by claiming title over the land in question has questioned the decision so taken by the Central Coalfields Limited in making payment of compensation in favour of the other persons way back in the year 1975 and also in the year 1983 when the land in question was acquired.

Factual Matrix

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the plaint as well as in the writ petition need to refer herein which reads as under:

(I) The original raiyat of the said land had failed to pay the rent for which a certificate proceeding being Certificate Case No.1143 of 1932-33 was initiated against him. Subsequently, the decree was prepared in the said case and the said land was purchased by ancestors of the Writ petitioner through auction sale and, thereafter, they came in possession of the land in question and became owner of the suit property. Due to dispute between the ancestors of the petitioner and the original raiyat over the suit property the ancestors of the petitioner filed Title Suit No. 178 of 1944 which was dismissed vide judgment dated 24.7.1946.

(II) Being aggrieved by the order dated 24.7.1946 the ancestors of the petitioner had filed Title Appeal No.58 of 1946 which was decided in favour of the ancestors of the petitioner vide order dated 11.02.1947, against which no proceeding was initiated by either of the parties.

(III) vide Notification No. S.O. 51(E) dated 24th January, 1975 issued by the Ministry of Energy (Department of Coal), Government of India, New Delhi, the land described in the Schedule appended to the said notification including part of the said land of the petitioner were acquired under the provisions of Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957.

(IV) Thereafter, vide virtue of notification dated 07.12.1983 the Government of India decided to acquire the land under the provisions of Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957 which included the suit property of the petitioner.

(V) It is stated that petitioner filed representation before the appropriate authorities for payment of compensation and employment, but no order has been passed till date. However, through RTI the petitioner came to know that the land in question has been decreed in favour of the ancestors of the petitioner and the said land belongs to the petitioner.

(VI) It is further stated that neither any compensation nor employment has been given to the petitioner in lieu of the acquisition of the land-in-question which is illegal and arbitrary.

(VII) Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner approached the writ Court by filing writ petition being WP (C) No. 1058 of 2024, in which respondents-CCL was called for, who appeared and filed counter affidavit stating inter alia that plots claimed by petitioner as submitted by him in Annexure-5 of the writ petition, does not entirely match with the plots acquired by Central Coalfields Limited under Khata No. 8, and many plots which are being claimed by the petitioner do not fall under the acquisition proceedings of the Central Coalfields Ltd. It has further been submitted by the respondents that compen