Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 546 (GUJ)

Jethusinh Sardarsinh Chauhan v. State Of Gujarat

2011-07-19

G.B.SHAH, V.M.SAHAI

body2011
JUDGMENT HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.M. SAHAI, J. 1. WE have heard Mr. Dakshesh Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner. This petition has been filed for the following reliefs :- "(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent authorities to take appropriate action and to verify the record regarding the awards passed in favour of the father of the petitioner and to further pass necessary award for Survey Nos.222 and 224 and pay the amount of award along with interest, to the petitioner. (B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to verify the record and submit the information regarding the awards passed in favour of the father of the petitioner, before this Honourable Court;" 2. THE land was acquired in the year 1970 for construction of residential houses for the staff of Dharoi Dam Project. The father of the petitioner died in the year 2007 and then the petitioner came to know from his old diary that compensation for acquiring the land for Survey No.222 and 224 was not paid. The petitioner prays that the records may be verified and compensation along with interest be paid. It is not disputed that father of the petitioner died in the year 2007 and the land was acquired in the year 1970. The father of the petitioner never claimed any compensation during his life time for a period of 27 years. 3. IN our opinion, at such a belated stage, this petition cannot be entertained as it has been held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa and another v. Mamta Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436 in paragraphs 52 to 54 as under :- "DELAY/LACHES :- 52. IN the very first appeal, the respondent filed Writ Petition on 11.11.2005 claiming relief under the Notification dated 6.10.1989 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 without furnishing any explanation for such inordinate delay and on laches on her part. IN the very first appeal, the respondent filed Writ Petition on 11.11.2005 claiming relief under the Notification dated 6.10.1989 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 without furnishing any explanation for such inordinate delay and on laches on her part. Section 3 of the Limitation Act 1963, makes it obligatory on the part of the court to dismiss the Suit or appeal if made after the prescribed period even though the limitation is not set up as a defence and there is no plea to raise the issue of limitation even at appellate stage because in some of the cases it may go to the root of the matter. (See : Lachhmi Sewak Sahu v. Ram Rup Sahu and Ors., AIR 1944 Privy Council 24; and Kamlesh Babu and Ors. v. Lajpat Rai Sharma and Ors, (2008) 12 SCC 577 ). 33. Needless to say that Limitation Act 1963 does not apply in writ jurisdiction. However, the doctrine of limitation being based on public policy, the principles enshrined therein are applicable and writ petitions are dismissed at initial stage on the ground of delay and laches. IN a case like at hand, getting a particular pay scale may give rise to a recurring cause of action. IN such an eventuality, the petition may be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and the court may refuse to grant relief for the initial period in case of an unexplained and inordinate delay. IN the instant case, the respondent claimed the relief from 1.1.1986 by filing a petition on 11.11.2005 but the High Court for some unexplained reason granted the relief w.e.f. 1.6.1984, though even the Notification dated 6.10.1989 makes it applicable w.e.f. 1.1.1986. 54. This Court has consistently rejected the contention that a petition should be considered ignoring the delay and laches in case the petitioner approaches the Court after coming to know of the relief granted by the Court in a similar case as the same cannot furnish a proper explanation for delay and laches. A litigant cannot wake up from deep slumber and claim impetus from the judgment in cases where some diligent person had approached the Court within a reasonable time. (See: M/s Rup Diamonds and Ors., v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1989 SC 674 ; State of Karnataka and Ors. v. S.M. Kotrayya and Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 267 ; and Jagdish Lal and Ors. (See: M/s Rup Diamonds and Ors., v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1989 SC 674 ; State of Karnataka and Ors. v. S.M. Kotrayya and Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 267 ; and Jagdish Lal and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., AIR 1997 SC 2366 ). Since the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches, no relief can be granted to him. This petition is accordingly dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.