Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 749 (MP)

Abdul Rashid v. State of M. P.

2001-10-16

DIPAK MISRA

body2001
ORDER Dipak Misra, J. 1. The seminal question, which arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether departing into hibernation for almost quarter of a century is to be exonerated on the ground of mercy basing on the principle that justice must be accompanied by compassion as well as mercy and 'thou shall not ration justice'. There cannot be denial of the aforesaid propositions which have infused life spark into the justice delivery system. The Courts are required to deal with a litigation with a sense of compassion so that justice is not denied to those who knock at its doors and the concept of mercy is not ostracized on technical or gossamer substratum but, a significant and eloquent one, whether a writ Court should entertain a grievance by the legal heirs, who have waken up from slumber after two decades and two years seeking alleviation of the grievance which they have chosen to keep close to the their breasts as if they are sacred secrets, and asserts their rights at their convenience. Rights they may have, but should this Court entertain a writ petition of this nature in exercise of its extraordinary and inherent jurisdiction to address to it and not reject it on the ground of delay and laches. 2. The facts as have been adumbrated are that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner late Ustad Gulam Mohammad was owner of the land bearing Khasra No. 115 admeasuring area 5.34 acres and Khasra No. 116 admeasuring area 0.96 acre situate in village Betla, Tehsil and District Jabalpur. Said Gulam Mohammad sold 1.99 acres of land to Ravindra Co-operative Housing Society on 5-2-1963. Thus, he was left with 3.55 acres of land. Under the provisions of M.P. Town Improvement Trust Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the Town Improvement Trust came into existence in the city of Jabalpur and the said trust framed scheme No. 3 under the Act. The said scheme included several acres of land located in village Gohalpur and Betla to be acquired under the provisions of the Act. The said notification was published in M.P. Gazette dated 26-1-1968 vide Annexure P-2. It is further set forth in the petition that Trust gave an offer to Gulam Mohammad by offering him a sum of rupees 7,583.67/- towards compensation. The said notification was published in M.P. Gazette dated 26-1-1968 vide Annexure P-2. It is further set forth in the petition that Trust gave an offer to Gulam Mohammad by offering him a sum of rupees 7,583.67/- towards compensation. The said offer was not accepted by the land owner as a consequence of which the Town Improvement Trust made a reference to the Joint Tribunal constituted under the Act for adjudication of the claims of many including that of the father of the petitioners. The Joint Tribunal considered all such references and passed a common award on 29-4- 1978 as contained in Annexure P-7. It is alleged a fraud was committed by the Town Improvement Trust as a result of which it got reflected in the order of the Tribunal that Gulam Mohammad had entered into a compromise though as an actual fact no compromise was ever entered into. It is putforth that not a single penny was paid to the Ustad Gulam Mohammad and nothing has been paid to the petitioners. 3. According to the writ Petitioners the Act was repealed and thereafter the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Adhiniyam') came into existence. As per the provisions of said Adhiniyam the Jabalpur Development Authority was established. Reference has been made to Section 87 of the Act to put forth that the assets and liabilities of the Town Improvement Trust was deemed to be assets and liabilities of the Jabalpur Development Authority. It is set forth that after the death of Ustad Gulam Mohammad the petitioners entered into correspondences with the Competent Authority of the JDA but all the representations and correspondences fell in deaf ears. It has also been pleaded that the power of attorney holder Mr. Mohd. Shabir Mehto moved an application on 4-10-1997 before the respondent authority for grant of compensation but nothing fruitful did happen. It has been averred that the petitioners are entitled to compensation/damages from the year 1968. Many a ground has been urged for justification of the aforesaid claim. 4. A return has been filed by the respondent 2, the Authority, contending, inter alia, that erstwhile Town Improvement Trust acquired the land in question under Section 71 of the Act-and the claim of the land owner Ustad Gulam Mohammad was not determined by the Joint Tribunal as the controversy had already been settled by way of compromise. 4. A return has been filed by the respondent 2, the Authority, contending, inter alia, that erstwhile Town Improvement Trust acquired the land in question under Section 71 of the Act-and the claim of the land owner Ustad Gulam Mohammad was not determined by the Joint Tribunal as the controversy had already been settled by way of compromise. It is put forth in the return that the claim advanced by the petitioner is devoid of substance inasmuch as the compensation with regard to land in question have been paid fully and finally to the persons who are legally entitled to receive the same. Averments have been made to highlight that the award passed by the Joint Tribunal has been honoured by the respondent Authority in the year 1981 in favour of the awardees. It is also the case of the Authority that before the acquisition of the land in question the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had alienated a parcel of the land to other persons and hence, he was not entitled to compensation. In the additional objection it has been urged that the land in question was acquired in the year 1968 and claim for compensation if any accrued to the land owners in the year 1968 itself and hence, writ petition being instituted in the year 1999 should not be entered on the ground of inordinate delay and laches. 5. Mr. V. S. Shroti, learned counsel for the petitioners in his usual suave manner mixed with poised vehemence has canvassed the cause of the petitioners, who are legal heirs of late Gulam Mohd. It is putforth by him that certain land belonging to Gulam Mohammad were taken over by the Jabalpur Town Improvement Trust under the provisions of the Act sometime in the year 1968 and there was some controversy with regard to right, title and interest and also with regard to quantum of compensation but the said authority has failed to determine the same and maintained a sphinx like silence without addressing itself to the grievance agitated by the petitioners from time to time. 6. Mr. Beohar, learned counsel for Jabalpur Development Authority (which has come into existence after dissolution of the Jabalpur Improvement Trust) has submitted that the predecessor-in-interest of the present Petitioners did not have right, title and interest over the land in question and compensation was paid to the original owners. 7. 6. Mr. Beohar, learned counsel for Jabalpur Development Authority (which has come into existence after dissolution of the Jabalpur Improvement Trust) has submitted that the predecessor-in-interest of the present Petitioners did not have right, title and interest over the land in question and compensation was paid to the original owners. 7. At this juncture, both the learned counsel for the parties have relied upon the paragraph 3 of the award passed by the Joint Claims Tribunal constituted under Section 77 of the Town Improvement Trust Act, 1960. It is apposite to produce paragraph 3 which reads as under: (3) In case No. 9. 1/1972 Khasra No. 115/1 area 1.95 acre and Khasra No. 116 area 0.96 acre total area 2.91 acre of village Katra Betla Gohalpur ward of Jabalpur Corporation. The Bhumi Swami of this area Gulam Mohammad had prepared a plan on paper showing lands and plots for building of houses and made people believe that this plan was sanctioned by M.P. Government. Some persons purchased these plots before 19-8-1966 but did not get their names recorded in revenue village papers. As their names were not recorded in revenue village papers, they were not included in the references made by the Trust to the Tribunal but when they learnt that the lands purchased by them have been acquired by the Trust proceedings for compensation are going on before the Tribunal they filed their claims before the Tribunal. Neither Gulam Mohammad nor the Trust, has any objection to compensation being paid to them for the lands purchased by them. For the remaining land which still continued in the ownership of Gulam Mohammad he has filed a claim for compensation of the same but subsequently compromised his case with the Trust. Similarly some other purchasers also get their cases compromised with the Trust, we will deal here only with these cases which are still before us. The aforesaid award was passed on 29-4-1978. It is submitted by Mr. Shroti that late Gulam Mohammad had never compromised the matter and the said compromise has not seen the light of the day but unfortunately there has been reference to the same in the award passed by the Tribunal. There might have been a compromise or not, but as it is discernible, the said Gulam Mohammad abandoned the claim before the Tribunal and did not invite the Tribunal to adjudicate the controversy on merits. There might have been a compromise or not, but as it is discernible, the said Gulam Mohammad abandoned the claim before the Tribunal and did not invite the Tribunal to adjudicate the controversy on merits. Mr. Beohar has contended that the decision was given long back in the month of April, 1978 and the present writ petition was filed in the year 1999 making an assertion that the grievance still subsists in view of the communication made on 5-9-97 by the Chief Executive Officer vide Annexure P-18. On a perusal of Annexure P-18 it is luminescent that the said authority has declined to address to the claims agitated by the power of attorney holder of the present Petitioners. Therefore, the said communication cannot give a fresh lease of life to the cause of action to the petitioners and it cannot spring up like a phoenix to knock at the doors of this Court. What happened in the month of April, 1978 could not be adverted to in the year 1999. 8. It is noteworthy to mention here that a claim sought to be putforth after such a long lapse of time cannot be entertained by a court of law as the cause of action had arisen in the remote past and the sound judicial discretion prohibits grant of releif. This Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that late Gulam Mohammad was aware of the order passed by the Tribunal but did not get himself into animation to assail the same. If he was dissatisfied with regard to the observation that there was a compromise, he could have filed an application before the Tribunal at the relevant point of time seeking review of the same. He chose to maintain a tongue-tied silence. His legal heirs did not do anything to ventillate their grievance but kept on making representations to the Jabalpur Development Authority. Continuous submission of representations does not keep the cause of action alive. 9. True it is, this Court issued notices to the respondents to know the stand of respondent No. 2, but that does not deprive respondent No. 2 to putforth its case on the ground of delay and laches. Continuous submission of representations does not keep the cause of action alive. 9. True it is, this Court issued notices to the respondents to know the stand of respondent No. 2, but that does not deprive respondent No. 2 to putforth its case on the ground of delay and laches. The stand taken by the predecessor-in-interest of the present Petitioners before the Joint Tribunal which crystallized into the order passed in April 1978 has become embedded as far as the petitioners are concerned as they had gone into in an incurable slumber for more than two scores, having a colossal and amazing march over mythical 'Kumbhakama'. The month of April has become the cruellest month for the petitioners. I so say because it has been said "April is the cruellest month, breading Lilacs out of the dead land........ " There cannot be any rose in the barren land. The delay has crushed the same. Life spark has become extinct. It is sans 'vital'. 10. In view of the aforesaid, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition and the same stands dismissed. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.