Point of Law: Land Acquisition Proceedings - Delay/laches/Limitation - It is true that no limitation has been prescribed for filing a petition under Article 226 of Constitution but one of several rules of self imposed restraint evolved by superior courts is that High Court will not entertain petitions filed after long lapse of time because that may adversely affect settled/crystallized rights of parties

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the record.

2. The case of the petitioners is that their ancestors were owners of plot nos. 238, 239, 340, 242, 243, 245 and 246 at village Saidbhar, Tehsil and District Baghpat. For construction of road from Sarai Mod (turn) of Baghpat road to Binauli, having a length of 16.45 kms, acquisition of land in favour of Public Works Department (PWD) was made sometime in the year 1980 with assurance that fair compensation would be offered to the land owners. The land of petitioners’ ancestors was utilised for the purpose but no compensation was paid/ awarded to them. However, on the representations of the petitioners, on 19.01.2004, a Committee was constituted to look into the issue but the Committee took no action. As result, the petitioners continued to represent their cause. It is alleged that on 01.09.2010 in respect of some other plots, an award was passed in favour of one Smt. Angoori. Therefore, again, representations were made for payment of compensation but to not avail. Later, a survey was conducted in the year 2017 to ascertain whether the land of petitioners’ ancestors was utilised for the road. The Survey report dated 20.06.2017 confirmed that the land was utilised. Thereafter, on representations, the matter was taken up again and, under the order of District Magistrate, Baghpat dated 25.06.2018, a five-member Committee was constituted to submit a report. The Committee submitted an ex-parte report, dated 10.02.2021, of which copy was not provided. Acting on the report dated 10.02.2021, by the impugned order dated 12.02.2021, the representations/claims of the petitioners were rejected by the third respondent (Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Baghpat).

3. A perusal of the impugned order dated 12.02.2021 would indicate that as per the report dated 10.02.2021 the road, namely, Binauli Baghpat Sarai Marg was built in between 1972 and 1984. Its length is 16.43 kms. The survey indicated that 2.13 hectare of land of the villagers of village Saidbhar was affected by construction of the road. It is stated in the report that the ancestors of the petitioners, keeping in mind the constraints of the existing chak-road and the benefits of a wider road, had voluntarily contributed small portions of their land for construction of the road and with their contribution and participation, a 12 meter wide road could be built which had been in existence for last nearly 40 years. The report further indicated that though the claimants claim the width of the road as 80 feet i.e. 34.2 meter but, on spot, the road is 12 meter wide. On the basis of this report, the third respondent, by placing reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Syed Maqbool Ali vs. State of U.P. (2011) 15 SCC 383, upon finding that the claim was highly belated; that the ancestors raised no objection and that the road was constructed for the benefits of the villagers with their consent, rejected the representation of the petitioners as not maintainable.

4. Aggrieved with the impugned order, this petition has been filed by claiming that the third respondent wrongly placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Syed Maqbool Ali’s case (supra) inasmuch as the petitioners had been actively pursuing their cause and since it is proved on record that their bhumidhari land has been utilised for construction of road, they are entitled to compensation at the market rate.

5. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that it is admitted in the petition that the road was completed sometime in the year 1980 and as it has not been demonstrated that any claim for compensation was made prior to the year 2004, the claim of the petitioners is hopelessly barred by laches and mere subsequent examination of the claim, to reject it later, will not make the laches condonable. Hence, the third respondent rightly rejected the claim by placing re