JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein, two fold directions have been sought for, i.e., (i) to direct the respondents particularly the respondent nos.3 ,4 and 6 to send the records appertaining to acquisition of the land acquired for the purpose of construction of water treatment plant within Mouza no.107 of khata no.82 of Patiya village, on the ground that the land of the petitioners which has been acquired sometime in the year, 1959, for the purpose of construction of water treatment plant, is forcefully being sought to be constructed without resorting to proper mechanism of acquisition, as required to be followed under the provision of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) 1894; (ii) to direct the respondents to make all arrangements for payment of compensation in cash and kind to the petitioners on acquisition of the lands of the petitioners in accordance with law. 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, which reads as under:- The petitioner no.1, namely, Kalicharan Mahto, claims to have his Khatiani land situated at Mouza no.107, as per the detail furnished at paragraph-6 of the petition, which is being reproduced hereinbelow:- Khata no. Plot no. area 82 1422 1429 2005 2601 10 decimals 06 decimals 26 decimals 06 decimals 120 1431 1474 2541 2676 2677 1485 1492 1546 1552 1601 1639 1650 05 decimals 05 decimals 06 decimals 71 decimals 3.60 decimals 09 decimals 15 decimals 08 decimals 03 decimals 07 decimals 07 decimals 07 decimals Total The petitioner no.2, namely, Shivlal Mahto, son of Bhirgu Mahto, claims to have his Khatiani land situated at Mouza no.107, as per the details furnished at paragraph-7 of the petition, which is being reproduced hereinbelow:- Khata No. Plot nos. Area 3 2631 2632 2636 2644 09 Decimals 95 Decimals 3.37 Decimals 2.62 Decimals Total 109.99 Decimals The petitioner no.3, namely, Oblal Mahato, son of Sri Hari Pado Mahto, claims to have his Khatiani land situated at Mouza no.109, as per the details furnished at paragraph-8 of the petition, which is being reproduced hereinbelow:- Khata no. Plot no. Area 3 2631 2632 2636 2644 09 Decimals 95 Decimals 3.37 Decimals 2.62 Decimals Total 109.99 Decimals The petitioner no.3, namely, Oblal Mahato, son of Sri Hari Pado Mahto, claims to have his Khatiani land situated at Mouza no.109, as per the details furnished at paragraph-8 of the petition, which is being reproduced hereinbelow:- Khata no. Plot no. Area Khata no.112 2646 2647 74 Decimals 08 Decimals Total 82 Decimals The petitioner no.4, namely, Jaichand Mahto, son of Sri Bihari Mahto, claims to have his land situated at Mouza no.107, as per the details furnished at paragraph-9 of the petition, which is being reproduced hereinbelow:- Khata no. Plot nos. Area 112 2585 2681 2652 2649 2650 2651 95 Decimals 04 Decimals 11 Decimals 04 Decimals 22 Decimals 17 Decimals Total 153 Decimals 120 2616 2662 99 Decimals 2.98 Decimals Total 101.98 Decimals The petitioner no.5, namely, Kali Turi, son of Sri Binod Turi, claims to have his Khatiani land situated at Mouza no.107, as per the details furnished at paragraph-10 of the petition, which is being reproduced hereinbelow:- Khata no. Plot nos. Area 79 2598 2622 2623 2624 33 Decimals 36 Decimals 06 Decimals 04 Decimals Total 79 Decimals 3 1374 1523 1398 1403 1404 1405 10 Decimals 01 Decimals 21 Decimals 11 Decimals 03 Decimals 04 Decimals Total 50 Decimals The petitioner no.6, namely, Chapa Mahto, son of Sri Bhada Mahto, claims to have his Khatiani land situated at Mouza no.107, as per the details furnished at paragraph-11 of the petition, which is being reproduced hereinbelow:- Khata no. Plot nos. Area 66 2589 2590 2633 2634 15 Decimals 24 Decimals 04 Decimals 01 Decimals Total 44 Decimals The petitioner no.7, namely, Baijnath Dom, son of Sri Nitai Dom, claims to have his Khatiani land situated at Mouza no.107, as per the details furnished at paragraph-12 of the petition, which is being reproduced hereinbelow:- Khata no. Plot no. Area 5 2000 2611 2614 36 Decimals 21 Decimals 118 Decimals Total 175 Decimals 3. According to the petitioners, the aforesaid land, for the purpose of construction of water treatment plant has been acquired, but, without following the provision as contained under Section 4 and Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 4. Plot no. Area 5 2000 2611 2614 36 Decimals 21 Decimals 118 Decimals Total 175 Decimals 3. According to the petitioners, the aforesaid land, for the purpose of construction of water treatment plant has been acquired, but, without following the provision as contained under Section 4 and Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 4. It is the ground of the petitioners that without following the provision as contained under Section 4 and Section 5-A of the Act, 1894, the declaration has been issued under Section 6 of the Act, 1894, therefore, the entire process of acquisition for acquiring the land for the purpose of construction of water treatment plant over the land in question is contrary to the statutory provision and as such, the same is vitiated in the eye of law and therefore, the entire land is to be restored in favour of the petitioners. It has further been contended on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the land in question is still in possession of the petitioners and therefore, it is a fit ground to pass an order for declaring the acquisition of land as under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 to be null and void. 5. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State-respondents, wherein, stand inter-alia has been taken that Gazette Notification has been issued, in view of the declaration to be made under Section 6 of the Act, 1894, as would appear from Annexure-A appended to the counter-affidavit. 6. According to the learned State Counsel, the moment the Gazette Notification has come for declaring the land in question for the public purpose as required under Section 6 of the Act, 1894, it cannot be said that such declaration as under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 has been issued without resorting to the provision of Section 4 and Section 5-A of the Act, 1894. The learned State Counsel has also taken the point that after the land having been acquired on observance of the provision of Section 4 and Section 5-A and the declaration has been made under Section 6 of the Act, 1894, thereafter, land acquisition proceeding has been initiated being L.A. Case No.77/1959 and thereafter, the award was prepared, in view thereof, the amount of compensation has been paid and to that effect, specific stand has been taken as under paragraph-11 of the counter-affidavit, as per the list of award made in L.A. Case No.77/1959 and therefore, it is incorrect on the part of the petitioners to take the ground that there is no notification under Section 4 and Section 5-A of the Act, 1894. The learned State Counsel has further taken the point that the award has been passed sometime in the year, 1959, but, the writ petition has been filed in the year, 2013, which was after delay of about 54 years and therefore, on this ground also, the writ petition is not worth to be considered on the ground of applicability of principle of delay and laches. 7. A rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the petitioners by controverting the stand taken by the State-respondents in the counter-affidavit, wherein, it has been reiterated that the award has been passed without resorting to the provision of Section 4 and Section 5-A of the Act, 1894 and therefore, the entire land which was said to have been acquired by the State Government is in the teeth of the provision of the Act, 1894 and as such, what has been contended by the State in the counter-affidavit is not worth to be considered. 8. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the averments made in the affidavits filed on their behalf as also the documents filed on their behalf have been scrutinized. The fact which is not in dispute in this case that the land as per the details furnished as under paragraph-6 to 12, as referred hereinabove has been acquired sometime in the year, 1959. The purpose for acquisition of land was for the construction of water treatment plant. The land has been acquired and accordingly, a land acquisition proceeding has been initiated being L.A. Case No.77/1959, as would appear from the stand taken by the State in the counter affidavit. The purpose for acquisition of land was for the construction of water treatment plant. The land has been acquired and accordingly, a land acquisition proceeding has been initiated being L.A. Case No.77/1959, as would appear from the stand taken by the State in the counter affidavit. An issue has been raised on behalf of the petitioners that the process of mechanism of acquiring the land as provided under the Act, 1894 has not been followed, since, according to the petitioners, the declaration has been notified as per the provision of Section 6 of the Act, 1894 without issuance of notice under Section 4 and without considering the said objection which was required to be considered in view of the provision of Section 5-A of the Act, 1894. This Court, therefore, is required to consider, as to whether, the State Government has acquired the land without issuing notice as required to be issued under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 and for its consideration, as required under Section 5-A of the Act, 1894. 9. It is not in dispute that Section 6 notification notified in the Gazette Notification as would appear from Annexure-A appended to the counter-affidavit, as per which, it appears that the said Gazette Notification is dated 24.10.1959, giving therein, the details of the land and with a declaration under the provision of Section 6 of the Act I of 1894 and Section 3 Clause (1) of Act XVIII of 1885, for ready reference, relevant part of the aforesaid Gazette Notification is being reproduced hereinbelow:- “By order of Government of Bihar, S.M. NAQAVI, Dy. Secy. The 24th October 1959 No. D.L. A.-Dhan-77/5910216. Secy. The 24th October 1959 No. D.L. A.-Dhan-77/5910216. R.-Declaration.- Whereas it appears to the Government of Bihar that land is required to be taken by Government at the expense of the Jharia Water Board, Dhanbad for a public purpose, viz., for Head Work and Service Road for Damodar Water Supply Scheme in the villages of Petia no.107, Jitpur no.108 and Nunukdih no.109, pargana Jharia, zila Dhanbad, it is hereby declared that for the above purpose a piece of land measuring, more or less, 131.83 acres bounded on the- North-By survey plots nos.2616(P), 1348(P), 1377(P), 1346(P) Xxxx xxxx xxxx Xxxx xxxx xxxx Xxxx xxxx xxxx Xxxx xxxx xxxx South-By survey plots nos.2616(P), 2717(P), 2615(P), 2617(P), Xxxx xxxx xxxx Xxxx xxxx xxxx East-By survey plots nos.2636(P), 2692(P),2677(P), 2693(P) Of village Petia no.107 and by Common village boundary line Of villages Petia no.107 and Dungri No.111 both under thana Kenduadih (Jharia) and 671 (village road) of village Nunukdih, West-By S.P. nos.2615(P), 2617(P), and 2616(P) of village Petia no.107 and 2714, Boundary of Damodar River of village Petia, thana Kenduadih (Jharia) pargana Jharia, zila Dhanabd is required within the aforesaid villages of Petia no.107, Jitpur no.108 and Nunukdih no.109. Mines of coal, iron-stone, slate or other minerals lying under the land, or any particular portion of the land, except only such parts of the mines and minerals as it may be necessary to dig, or carry away, or use in the construction of the work for the purpose of which the land is being acquired are not needed. This declaration is made, under the provisions of section 6 of Act I of 1894 and section 3 clause (1) of Act, XVIII of 1885 to all whom it may concern” 10. The aforesaid Gazette notification dated 24.10.1959 has never been questioned by the petitioners and even in this writ petition, the same has not been questioned. Now the question arises that whether after issuance of Gazette Notification as required to be issued under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 can be said to be without resorting to the provision of Section 4 and Section 5-A of the Act, 1894. 11. This Court, in order to answer the same, deems it fit and proper to refer the provision of Sections 4, 5-A and 6 of the Act, 1894 for proper adjudication of the lis. 11. This Court, in order to answer the same, deems it fit and proper to refer the provision of Sections 4, 5-A and 6 of the Act, 1894 for proper adjudication of the lis. For ready reference, Section 4 of the Act, 1894 reads as under:- “4. Publication of preliminary notification and power of officers thereupon.-(1) Whenever it appears to the [appropriate Government] that land in any locality [is needed or] is likely to be needed for any public purpose [or for a company], a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette [and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language], and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality [(the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the notification)]. (2) Thereupon it shall be lawful for any officer, either, generally or specially authorized by such Government in this behalf, and for his servants and workmen,- to enter upon and survey and take levels of any land in such locality; to dig or bore in the sub-soil; to do all other acts necessary to ascertain whether the land is adapted for such purpose; to set out the boundaries of the land proposed to be taken and the intended line of the work (if any) proposed to be made thereon; to mark such levels, boundaries and line by placing marks and cutting trenches; and where otherwise the survey cannot be completed and the levels taken and the boundaries and the line marked, to cut down and clear away any part of any standing crops, fence or jungle: Provided that no person shall enter into any building or upon any enclosed Court or garden attached to a dwelling-house (unless with the consent of the occupier thereof) without previously giving such occupier at least seven days’ notice in writing of his intention to do so.” It is evident from Section 4 as quoted and referred above that whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose or for a company, a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language, and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality and the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the notification. It is evident from Sub-section (2) of Section 4 thereof that such Government will enter upon and survey and take levels of any land in such locality; to dig or bore in the sub-soil; to do all other acts necessary to ascertain whether the land is adapted for such purpose; to set out the boundaries of the land proposed to be taken and the intended line of the work (if any) proposed to be made thereon; to mark such levels, boundaries and line by placing marks and cutting trenches; and where otherwise the survey cannot be completed and the levels taken and the boundaries and the line marked, to cut down and clear away any part of any standing crops, fence or jungle: Provided that no person shall enter into any building or upon any enclosed Court or garden attached to a dwelling-house (unless with the consent of the occupier thereof) without previously giving such occupier at least seven days’ notice in writing of his intention to do so. It is, thus, evident that as per Section 4 notification is required to be issued for the purpose of preliminary investigation about the utilization of their aforesaid land as provided under the said provision, but, not without giving any notice at least prior to 7 days, in writing of his intention to do so. The aforesaid provision, thus, is having implication to provide an opportunity of hearing to the concerned, from whose possession the land is being acquired for the public purpose. For ready reference, Section 5-A of the Act, 1894 reads as under:- “5-A. Hearing of objections.-(1) Any person interested in any land which has been notified under section 4, sub-section (1), as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose or for a company may, [within thirty days from the date of the publication of the notification], object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality, as the case may be. (2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the Collector in writing, and the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard [in person of by any person authorized by him in this behalf] or by pleader and shall, after hearing all such objection and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, [either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under section 4, sub-section(1), or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land, to the appropriate Government, containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him, for the decision of the Government]. The decision of the [appropriate Government] on the objections shall be final. (3) For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the land were acquired under this Act.]” It is, thus, evident from perusal of Section 5-A that any person interested in any land which has been notified under section 4, sub-section (1), as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose or for a company may, within thirty days from the date of the publication of the notification, object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality, as the case may be. Such objection is to be decided by the Collector in writing by giving an opportunity of being heard. For ready reference, Section 6 of the Act, 1894 reads as under:- “6. Such objection is to be decided by the Collector in writing by giving an opportunity of being heard. For ready reference, Section 6 of the Act, 1894 reads as under:- “6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose.-(1) Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act, [when the [appropriate Government] is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made under section 5-A, sub-section (2),] that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a company, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorized to certify its orders [and different declarations may be made from time to time in respect of different parcels of any land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section (1), irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or have been made (wherever required) under section 5-A, sub-section (2)]: [Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under section 4, sub-section (1),- (i) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 (1 of 1967), but before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date of the publication of the notification; or (ii) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of publication of the notification:] [Provided further that] no such declaration shall be made unless the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid by a company, or wholly or partly out of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority.” The provision as contained under Section 6 stipulates that subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act, when the appropriate Government is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made under section 5-A, sub-section (2), that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a company, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorized to certify its orders and different declarations may be made from time to time in respect of different parcels of any land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section (1), irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or have been made wherever required under section 5-A, subsection (2), provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under section 4, sub-section (1), published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 (1 of 1967), but before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date of the publication of the notification or published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the notification. Therefore, if the provision of Section 4 and Section 5-A will be read together, it would be evident that the process of acquisition of land effective from the day, when the notification is issued under Section 4 by the appropriate Government in order to apprise the party concerned to know that the said particular land is proposed to be acquired for the public purpose, as also, for providing an opportunity to such party to file an objection which is required to be considered by the Collector of the concerned district under the provision of Section 5A of the Act, 1894. The Collector, thereafter, will refer the same before the appropriate Government and the aforesaid report after being considered by the appropriate Government will be notified in the official Gazette by way of declaration that such land is required for the public purpose. The declaration, under Section 6 has been notified in the official Gazette, as would appear from Annexure-A appended to the counter affidavit, which has not been disputed by the petitioners and rightly not disputed because it is the Gazette notification and as such, there is no reason to dispute unless a ground is being taken by the petitioners about its fakeness. Therefore, this Court is considering the aforesaid document to be correct, since, the same has been issued by the appropriate Government by way of Gazette notification. 12. It is not in dispute that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is in two parts, i.e., (i) the declaration of the land for the public purpose and thereafter, once it will be declared by the appropriate Government, a particular land is required for the public purpose, then, the question of consideration of amount of compensation will come and accordingly, the procedure has been laid down after Section 6 which ultimately to culminate when an award is being passed under the provision of the Act, 1894, however, there are other provisions for different purposes. 13. Admittedly, herein, an award has been passed, as has been stated by the State in the counter affidavit, wherein, stand has been taken as under paragraph-11 thereof that the award has been passed in L.A. Case No.77/1959, basis upon which, the amount has been paid in favour of the displaced person whose land has been acquired by the State Government. 14. 14. This Court, therefore, is of the considered view on the basis of the discussions made hereinabove that so far as the issue on fact is concerned, the moment the declaration has come under Section 6 in the Gazette Notification, it cannot be presumed that the same has been issued without resorting to the provision of Section 4 and Section 5-A of the Act, 1894. 15. Even for the sake of submission, if the same has been accepted, then the question arises that why such point has not been raised immediately when the proceeding has been initiated by way of L.A. Case No.77/1959, rather, it appears from the counter-affidavit that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner or the petitioner had participated in the proceeding pertaining to L.A. Case No.77/1959, basis upon which, an award has been passed and the amount has been disbursed, which goes to suggest that no objection has ever been raised on behalf of the predecessor-in-interest about non-issuance of notice under Section 4 and its non-consideration under Section 5-A of the Act, 1894. Further, if that be the fact, then the question arises why such point has not been raised, when the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, if any, during the relevant time has agitated the aforesaid point in the aforesaid land acquisition proceeding. 16. This Court, is further of the view that the moment the adjudication has been made regarding the quantum of amount by passing an order/award in L.A. Case No.77/1959, it will be presumed that the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioners have been issued notice under Section 4, otherwise, the question will arise that on what basis the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had appeared in the proceeding pertaining to L.A. Case No.77/1959. Therefore, the moment the predecessor-in-interest had appeared in the aforesaid L.A. proceeding, it must be on the basis of the notice issued under Section 4, otherwise, there was no question of putting appearance by the predecessor-in-interest in the aforesaid L.A. proceeding commenced sometime in the year, 1959. 17. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view on fact that the writ petitioners have failed to make out a case for calling upon the record, so far as the prayer no.(i) is concerned. 18. 17. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view on fact that the writ petitioners have failed to make out a case for calling upon the record, so far as the prayer no.(i) is concerned. 18. So far as the prayer no.(ii) is concerned which pertains to a direction to be issued upon the respondents to make payment of amount of compensation but, it is evident from the stand taken by the State in the counter-affidavit as under paragraph-11, wherein, it has been stated that the amount of compensation has been paid, which has duly been received as per the list appended to the award passed in L.A. Case No.77/1959. The said fact as has been stated at paragraph-11 has not been disputed by the writ petitioners, although, a rejoinder has been filed. 19. Therefore, even the prayer no.(ii), which pertains to disbursement of amount of compensation is concerned, is also not worth to be considered in the facts and circumstances of the case. 20. The other reason also, which is required to be considered that as to whether, after lapse of 54 years, i.e., from passing of order in L.A. Case No.77/1959 which has been passed sometime in the year, 1959, can this writ petition be entertained on the ground of applicability of principle of delay and laches. 21. The position of law is well settled as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahavir & Ors. Vrs. Union of India & Anr., (2018) 3 SCC 588 , wherein, at paragraph-23, it has been laid down as under:- “23. In the instant case, the claim has been made not only belatedly, but neither the petitioners nor their previous three generations had ever approached any of the authorities in writing for claiming compensation. No representation had ever been filed with any authority, none has been annexed and there is no averment made in the petition that any such representation had ever been filed. The claim appears not only stale and dead but extremely clouded. This we are mentioning as additional reasons, as such claims not only suffer from delay and laches but courts are not supposed to entertain such claims. Besides such claims become doubtful, cannot be received for consideration being barred due to delay and laches.” Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court recently in the judgment rendered in Baljeet Singh (Dead) through Lrs. This we are mentioning as additional reasons, as such claims not only suffer from delay and laches but courts are not supposed to entertain such claims. Besides such claims become doubtful, cannot be received for consideration being barred due to delay and laches.” Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court recently in the judgment rendered in Baljeet Singh (Dead) through Lrs. And Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others [ (2019) 15 SCC 33 ], has dismissed the claim of the claimant who had approached the court of law after lapse of about 21 years seeking enhanced compensation. In the aforesaid case, at para-7, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held which reads hereunder as :- “7. The matter requires examination from another aspect viz. laches and delay. It is a very recognised principle of jurisprudence that a right not exercised for a long time is non-existent. Even when there is no limitation period prescribed by any statute relating to certain proceedings, in such cases, courts have coined the doctrine of laches and delay as well as doctrine of acquiescence and non-suited the litigants who approached the court belatedly without any justifiable explanation for bringing the action after unreasonable delay. In those cases, where the period of limitation is prescribed within which the action is to be brought before the court, if the action is not brought within that prescribed period, the aggrieved party loses remedy and cannot enforce his legal right after the period of limitation is over, however, subject to the prayer for condonation of delay and if there is a justifiable explanation for bringing the action after the prescribed period of limitation is over and sufficient cause is shown, the court may condone the delay. Therefore, in a case where the period of limitation is prescribed and the action is not brought within the period of limitation and subsequently proceedings are initiated after the period of limitation along with the prayer for condonation of delay, in that case, the applicant has to make out a sufficient cause and justify the cause for delay with a proper explanation. It is not that in each and every case despite the sufficient cause is not shown and the delay is not properly explained, the court may condone the delay. It is not that in each and every case despite the sufficient cause is not shown and the delay is not properly explained, the court may condone the delay. To make out a case for condonation of delay, the applicant has to make out a sufficient cause/reason which prevented him in initiating the proceedings within the period of limitation. Otherwise, he will be accused of gross negligence. If the aggrieved party does not initiate the proceedings within the period of limitation without any sufficient cause, he can be denied the relief on the ground of unexplained laches and delay and on the presumption that such person has waived his right or acquiesced with the order. These principles are based on the principles relatable to sound public policy that if a person does not exercise his right for a long time then such right is nonexistent.” 22. It is evident from the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Baljeet Singh (supra) which was a case for seeking a direction for compensation in lieu of acquisition of land and the Hon’ble Apex Court has declined to condone the delay of 21 years. 23. Herein, in the facts and circumstances of the case, since, the land acquisition proceeding has been initiated sometime in the year, 1959, but the writ petition has been filed in the year, 2013, i.e., after lapse of 54 years, therefore, on this ground also, i.e., on the ground of applicability of principle of delay and laches, this writ petition is also not worth to be considered. 24. This Court, on the basis of the entirety of the facts and circumstances as per the discussion made hereinabove, is of the view that the instant writ petition lacks merit. 25. In the result, the instant writ petition fails and is, dismissed.