SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DR. B.S. CHAUHAN & JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.
TUKARAM KANA JOSHI & ORS. THR. POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER - Appellants
VERSUS
M.I.D.C. & ORS. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No.7780 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.2418 of 2012)
Decided on : 02-11-2012.
AIR 1995 SC 142; (2007) 10 SCC 448; (2010) 10 SCC 43; AIR 2011 SC 1989; AIR 2012 SC 559; AIR 2012 SC 573 - Relied upon
(b) Constitution of India - Article 32 and 226 - Delay and laches - Stale claim - Maintainability - Denial of stale claim - Applicable to service jurisprudence, compensation for wrong done long ago, recovery of statutory dues, claim for educational facilities and likes - Not applicable to taking possession of land without sanction of law - Distinction between eminent domain and police power. (Para 9)
(c) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Delay and laches - One facet to deny exercise of discretion - Not absolute impediment - Discretion under Article should be exercised where no third party right is involved and cause of action is continuous. (Para 10)
AIR 1974 SC 2271; AIR 1987 SC 251; (2009) 1 SCC 768; AIR 1970 SC 769; AIR 1987 SC 1353; AIR 1993 SC 802; AIR 2003 SC 1140; AIR 2011 SC 2161; AIR 1984 SC 866 - Relied upon
(d) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Land taken possession of five decades ago - Legitimate dues not yet paid - Dismissal of writ on ground of delay and laches deprecated. (Para 16)
AIR 1988 SC 2123 - Relied upon
Facts of the case:
Notification u/s 4 of L. A. Act issued and lapsed due to delay in further proceedings. However land taken possession of without paying compensation. Notification issued second time also lapsed.
Writ claiming compensation rejected by High Court on ground of delay.
Finding of the Court:
Non-payment of legitimate dues for five decades deprecated.
Result : Appeal disposed off.
JUDGMENT
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.-Leave granted.
2. This appeal has arisen from the impugned judgment and order dated 14.11.2011, passed by the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.9513 of 2009, by way of which the High Court has rejected the claim of the appellants for any compensation due to them for the land taken by the respondent authorities, without resorting to any procedure prescribed by law.
3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are as under: A. The land in dispute admeasuring 0-2-3 and 0-7-1 (9500 sq.mtrs.) in Survey nos. 2 and 3 respectively, situate in the revenue estate of village Shirwame Taluka and District Thane, was owned by the predecessors-in-interest of the appellants, namely, Kana Ganpat Joshi, Maruti Kana Joshi, Dinanath Ganpat Joshi and Gopinath Ganpat Joshi. A very large chunk of land including the said land stood notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) on 6.6.1964 for the establishment of the Ulhas Khore Project i.e. a project for industrial development. However, no subsequent proceedings were taken up thereafter, and the acquisition proceedings lapsed. The predecessors-in-interest of the appellants were not merely illiterate farmers, but were also absolutely unaware of their rights and hence too inarticulate to claim them. Thus, they could be persuaded by the officers of the respondent authorities to hand over possession of the said land. Actual physical possession of the said land was taken by the State authorities and handed over to the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter called as the ‘Development Corporation’) in the year 1964 itself. B. Similarly situated persons who were also deprived of their rights in a similar manner were granted compensation vide order dated 17.6.1966. C. The respondent-authorities realised in 1981 that grave injustice had been done to the appellants. Thus, in respect of the land in dispute, a fresh notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 14.5.1981 was issued. However, no further proceedings under the Act were initiated. The appellants had been pursuing the authorities persuading them to complete the deemed acquisition proceedings, but despite their efforts, even a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was not issued and therefore, such proceedings also died a natural death. D. On 30.4.1988, the Development Corporation, under the instructions of the Government of Maharashtra handed over the possession of the said land to the City Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as ‘CIDCO’). The appellants were unable to get any compensation for the said land or even for that matter, any land in lieu of the lands so taken, in spite of their best efforts made in this regard. Various beneficial schemes were floated by the State authorities in favour of persons who had been deprived of their livelihood and those, whose land had been acquired for the same purpose and under such schemes, such uprooted persons were granted a particular piece of developed land, proportionate to their area acquired. But, appellants’ efforts in this regard also could not be fruitful. E. As the appellants were unable to get any relief from any authority, though they were continuously pursuing their remedies by approaching the Special Land Acquisition Officer, as well as the Revenue Authorities of the State, without any success whatsoever, they then, feeling totally distraught/frustrated, approached the High Court of Bombay as a last resort, by filing Writ Petition No. 9513 of 2009. The same was dismissed by the High Court only on the grounds of delay, and the non-availability of certain documents. Hence, this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. This Court has dealt with this case on several occasions in the past and has repeatedly asked the State authorities to be sensitive, sympathetic and requested them to put forw
Tridip Kumar Dingal v. State of West Bengal
Durga Prasad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports
Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji
12 Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company Ltd. v. District Board, Bhojpur
13 Dayal Singh v. Union of India
Shankara Co-op Housing Society Ltd. v. M. Prabhakar
H.D Vora v. State of Maharashtra
Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar, v. State of Gujarat
Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. State of Madhya Pradesh
State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar
Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.