Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 879 (ALL)

JANG BAHADUR SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2001-08-30

D.S.SINHA, LAKSHMI BIHARI

body2001
D. S. SINHA, LAKSHMI BIHARI, JJ. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Surendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Sri Vinay malviya, learned standing counsel of the State of U. P. , representing the respondents. ( 2 ) THE grievance of the petitioners in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is that their bhumidhari land Bearing Plot Nos. 313/1, 313/2 and 80/1 was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in connection with construction of Domariyaganj barni (Provincial) Road and Shahpur Singar Jot Marg, running from Sidharthnagar to domariyaganj bridge situate on Rapti river, but they arc not being paid compensation therefor. ( 3 ) THE respondents have filed a counter-affidavit, a copy of which was served on the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners on 6th January, 1998, as is evident from the endorsement on the counter-affidavit. ( 4 ) UNDER Rule 4 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of Court, 1952, rejoinder-affidavit of the petitioner, in answer to the counter-affidavit of the respondent, has to be filed within two weeks after the service of the copy of the counter-affidavit on the petitioner. In this case, despite lapse of more than three and a half years, no rejoinder-affidavit has been filed by the petitioners. Thus, the averments contained in the counter-affidavit of the respondents remain uncontroverted, and are accepted to be correct. ( 5 ) THE uncontroverted averments made in paragraphs 3, 6, 7, 10 and 11 of the counter-affidavit, clearly show that the land of the petitioners was never acquired as alleged by them. The land of the petitioners having not been acquired, there was no occasion for paying to them any compensation. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners for compensation is misconceived and cannot be sustained. ( 6 ) THERE is another important aspect of the case, namely, inordinate delay in approaching this court. Instant petition putting forth claim for compensation was filed in November, 1995, whereas, according to their own showing, the land was acquired in the year 1967-68. ( 7 ) NOTICING the fact that the petition was highly belated, the Court, vide its order dated 21st november, 1995, granted to the petitioners a weeks time to file supplementary-affidavit explaining the delay. No supplementary-affidavit has been filed hitherto. Thus, in the absence of any explanation for the delay, the petition is held to be highly belated. ( 7 ) NOTICING the fact that the petition was highly belated, the Court, vide its order dated 21st november, 1995, granted to the petitioners a weeks time to file supplementary-affidavit explaining the delay. No supplementary-affidavit has been filed hitherto. Thus, in the absence of any explanation for the delay, the petition is held to be highly belated. It cannot be gainsaid that inordinate delay in invoking the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is well recognized ground for declining the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under the said Article. ( 8 ) ON the facts and circumstances noticed above the Court is of the opinion that the petition is absolutely devoid of substance. Accordingly, it is dismissed. .