Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1682 (ALL)

Suraj Bali Sharma v. State of U. P.

2004-08-26

JAGDISH BHALLA, KAMAL KISHORE

body2004
JUDGMENT Jagdish Bhalla, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner through his attorney Sri Hari Narain Dubey, praying inter alia to command the opposite parties to declare the award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, at the present rate prevailing in the area in question and has further prayed for 12% additional compensation under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, from 31.3.1982, i.e., the date when the possession of the land in question was taken over by the opposite parties. The petitioner has also sought a direction that the opposite parties be directed to pay entire amount of damages, compensation including the statutory interest and other admissible amount. In the event award is not declared, the land in question may be restituted in favour of the petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner, the land of the petitioner was illegally acquired by the State Government and the notification published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) on 4.3.1982 and under Section 6 on 6.3.1982 of the Act are not in consonance with the statutory provisions of law and the possession of the land which was taken on 31.3.1992, is contrary to the Land Acquisition Act apart from being against the principles of natural justice. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 28.2.1983 the opposite party No. 3 declared the award in respect of the land legally acquired for the establishment of Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences but till date no award has been declared in respect of the land in question. The petitioner has already made a representation to the Director, Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences and another representation was made to the Minister, Medical Education on 2.1.1999. 4. A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondents regarding inordinate delay in filing the writ petition. The matter pertains to the year 1982 and the writ petition has been filed on 9.2.2000, i.e., after 18 years without giving any explanation regarding delay and laches. It has also been emphatically argued by Sri D. K. Arora, learned counsel for S.G.P.G.I.M.S., that there is no power of attorney on record executed by Suraj Bali Sharma in favour of Sri Hari Narain Dubey, which gives right to him to agitate the matter on his behalf. It has also been emphatically argued by Sri D. K. Arora, learned counsel for S.G.P.G.I.M.S., that there is no power of attorney on record executed by Suraj Bali Sharma in favour of Sri Hari Narain Dubey, which gives right to him to agitate the matter on his behalf. Further, there is no explanation as to why petitioner Suraj Bali Sharma himself has not come forward to contest the matter and Sri Hari Narain Dubey is contesting on his behalf. According to him, this is a proxy petition filed by Sri Hari Narain Dubey, who is a retired Chief Engineer and has commercial property in the vicinity of S.G.P.G.I.M.S. 5. While dealing with the writ petition we had occasion to go through the record of the authorities wherein we have found that there is a letter of Sri H. N. Dubey dated 24.5.1982, informing the authorities that he had purchased the land belonging to Suraj Bali. The description of letter dated 24.5.1982, has also been made in a supplementary-affidavit filed by Sri Mishri Lal Paswan, Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), district Lucknow. It is rather surprising as to why, Hari Narain Dubey himself could not muster courage to file writ petition and preferred to file it through Suraj Bali as his attorney. These peculiar facts lead to an inference that there is something fishy, which the petitioner wants to conceal. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, we are of the view that it is a case of purchase litigation. The conflicting circumstances create doubt on the statement made in the affidavit. Sri H. N. Dubey, who himself had informed the authorities in writing that he has purchased the land in question, has come before this Court in a difference capacity alleging that Suraj Bali Sharma is the petitioner and Sri Dubey is his attorney. In these circumstances it is crystal clear that the petitioner and Sri H. N. Dubey has not approached this Court with clean hands. Believing the letter dated 24.5.1982 of Sri Dubey establishes, a clear case of fraud committed by him with the collusion of petitioner-Suraj Bali. It appears that Sri Dubey has forgotten the above letter and may have paid some money to Suraj Bali way back to harvest the fruits of the real estate in time to come and in the process has filed this petition. 7. It appears that Sri Dubey has forgotten the above letter and may have paid some money to Suraj Bali way back to harvest the fruits of the real estate in time to come and in the process has filed this petition. 7. It would be relevant to mention herein that in Delhi Administration v. Madan Lal Naugia, 2004 (1) AWC 414 (SC) : (2003) 10 SCC 321 , observed that : “it is only a person who has an interest in the land who can challenge acquisition. When a challenge is made to an acquisition, at a belated stage, then even if the court is inclined to allow at such a belated challenge, it must first satisfy itself that the person challenging acquisition has title to the land.” 8. In Northern Indian Glass Industries v. Jaswant Singh, 2002 (5) AWC 3495 (SC) : 2003 (1) SCCD 248 : (2003) 1 SCC 335 the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid emphasis on the fact that conduct of the challenger must be taken into account before condoning delay and laches. 9. In the instant case the petitioner allowed a long time to pass before challenging the acquisition clearly indicates that the petitioner did not have any genuine grievance against acquisition proceedings. There is no explanation whatsoever for the inordinate delay in filing the writ petition. Merely because compensation amount was not paid to the petitioner, that itself is not a good ground to condone the delay and laches in filing the writ petition. 10. The doctrine of “delay defeats equity” is applicable in the matter of grant of relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The relief under Article 226 is discretionary in nature and can be granted subject to a person has not by his act or conduct given a go-by to his rights. In the present case by allowing considerable time to lapse, it can be easily inferred that the petitioner has accepted the acquisition proceedings, if not expressly but impliedly. 11. As stated above, the land belonging to the petitioner at village Kalli Pashcim, Pargana, Bijnore, was taken for establishment of Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences and on the basis of measurement and demarcation done by the Revenue Authorities, the possession was given to U.P. Rajkiya Niram Nigam Limited for construction over the land way back in the year 1983. It may be pointed out that from the records it clearly emerges out that Suraj Bali has applied for payment of compensation and he was asked to submit proof regarding his claim. 12. Before concluding, we would like to add that in the revenue record the land belonging to the petitioner has been recorded as “sirdar”. Under Section 153 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act it is provided that a “sirdar” or “asami” has no transferable rights except as expressly permitted by the Act. Under Section 24 (2) of the U.P. Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, a “sirdar” may make simple mortgage of his holding or may transfer by gift land to a recognized educational institution for a purpose connected with agriculture, horticulture and animal husbandry. Any other mode of transfer of sirdari rights is in contravention of the provision of the aforesaid section. 13. In the wake of aforesaid reasons, the writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. However, parties shall bear their own costs.