ORDER : The instant appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 02.06.2020 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been dismissed declining to interfere with the order dated 13.09.2019 passed in Misc. Appeal No.17 of 2019 whereby the claim of the petitioner for compensation in respect of a piece of land measuring an area of 13 decimals appertaining to Plot no. 403 under Khata No. 20 of Mouza – Upraili Dhanwar, District-Giridih, has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under :- It is the case of the writ petitioner that the land under Plot No. 403, Khata No. 20 situated in Mouza-Upraili Dhanwar measuring an area of 46 decimals was recorded in the name of Bakar Mian in the record of rights prepared during survey operation as his raiyati land. Out of said 46 decimals, 11 decimals of land was acquired by the respondents vide Land Acquisition Case No. 38 of 1957-58 and the compensation was also paid to the recorded tenant, i.e., Bakar Mian, through an award dated 23.03.1959. After the death of Bakar Mian, his only son Gani Mian and two daughters inherited 35 decimals of the said land. Uneja Khatoon wife of Gani Mian purchased the share of one sister of Gani Mian to the extent of 10 ½ decimals. The said Uneja Khatoon being the sole owner of land measuring 13 decimals, sold the said land to different purchasers namely Basudeo Prasad Agarwal jointly with Md. Musa Khan (petitioner), Jamila Khatoon, Safina Khatoon, Manaur Sheikh and Sanwar Seikh by way of five different sale deeds all dated 21.02.1992. The area which was sold jointly to Basudeo Prasad Agarwal and the petitioner was 05 decimals and the rest four were sold two decimals each (total 13 decimals). However, the petitioner purchased the share of Basudeo Prasad Agarwal measuring 2½ decimals on 14.02.2015. On 11.09.2012, the aforesaid purchasers executed a registered power of attorney in favour of the petitioner authorizing him to contest legal proceedings in the matter of aforesaid piece of land. However, the petitioner purchased the share of Basudeo Prasad Agarwal measuring 2½ decimals on 14.02.2015. On 11.09.2012, the aforesaid purchasers executed a registered power of attorney in favour of the petitioner authorizing him to contest legal proceedings in the matter of aforesaid piece of land. The writ petitioner made representation before the District Land Acquisition Officer, Giridih on 16.01.2015 for payment of compensation in respect of the said land measuring an area of 13 decimals, out of 15 decimals, claiming that apart from the acquired land, the respondents have also constructed road upon the said land without paying any compensation. However, no step was taken by the respondent no. 3 which compelled the writ petitioner to file writ petition before this court which was registered as W.P.(C) No. 951 of 2015. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 10.01.2019 with a liberty to the petitioner to prefer a representation before the respondent no. 2 who was directed to consider the same and to come to a conclusion as to whether the petitioner was indeed entitled for payment of compensation as claimed by him and to pass a reasoned order within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the said order. The writ petitioner made representation in pursuance of the said order and accordingly, Misc. Appeal No. 17 of 2019 was registered by the respondent no. 2, however, the claim of the writ petitioner was rejected vide order dated 13.09.2019. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the said order, has preferred writ petition being W.P.(C) No.7247 of 2019. The respondents appeared and inter alia submitted that neither the recorded raiyat nor his legal heirs have ever claimed compensation for the land on which road was constructed prior to acquisition of the land measuring an area of 11 decimals. The petitioner and others in spite of being fully aware of the said fact, purchased the part of the road and started claiming compensation which may not be allowed being a belated one. The ground has also been taken that the claim has been raised after lapse of inordinate delay i.e., after lapse of about 60 years. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the facts in entirety, has dismissed the writ petition against which the present intra-court appeal has been filed. 3. Mr. The ground has also been taken that the claim has been raised after lapse of inordinate delay i.e., after lapse of about 60 years. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the facts in entirety, has dismissed the writ petition against which the present intra-court appeal has been filed. 3. Mr. Arjun Narayan Deo, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner, has submitted that the learned Single Judge, without taking into consideration the rightful claim of the writ petitioner over the land in question and merely on the basis of the fact that the claim has been filed after delay of 60 years, has dismissed the writ petition. It has also been submitted that the vendors of the writ petitioner had been pursuing the claim for compensation, prior to transfer of land in favour of the writ petitioner, but this aspect of the matter has also not been considered by the learned Single Judge. 4. While on the other hand, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, learned Sr. S.C.-I, appearing for respondent State of Jharkhand, has vehemently argued that there is no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge since claim for compensation has been filed after lapse of 60 years. It has been further submitted that the writ petitioner purchased the land even after knowing the fact that road has already been constructed over there and after purchasing it, has started making claim for compensation and taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition by making an observation that when the writ petitioner purchased the land, the road was already there over the said land. Therefore, the order passed by learned Single Judge requires no interference. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 6. The undisputed fact in this case as per the order passed by the learned Single Judge is that the writ petitioner was subsequent transferee of the land for which compensation has been sought for. The claim having been rejected vide order dated 13.09.2019, therefore, writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 7247 of 2019 has been filed. 6. The undisputed fact in this case as per the order passed by the learned Single Judge is that the writ petitioner was subsequent transferee of the land for which compensation has been sought for. The claim having been rejected vide order dated 13.09.2019, therefore, writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 7247 of 2019 has been filed. The further admitted fact is that the amount of compensation has been claimed after lapse of 60 years that too the land has been purchased even after knowing the fact that the road is over there. The learned Single Judge has considered these two aspects of the matter and mainly considering the fact that there is inordinate delay in filing the writ petition as the claim for compensation was agitated after lapse of 60 years and, therefore, declined to interfere with the impugned order taking into consideration the reasons assigned therein. 7. It is settled position of law that the money claim or approaching the High Court under its extra ordinary jurisdiction as conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petition is required to be filed within a reasonable period. Although there is no applicability of the Limitation Act but the principle of delay and laches is strictly to be followed. Herein, admittedly the claim for compensation has been filed after lapse of 60 years which is nothing but approaching the writ court after lapse of inordinate delay of 60 years. 8. The position of law as has been settled by 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 nonexistent. 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 nonexistent. 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. 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. 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 non-existent.” 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. 9. This Court, after considering the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case referred hereinabove as also considering the fact that the claim for compensation has been filed after lapse of 60 years, which is admittedly after inordinate delay, that too without explanation, is of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge requires no interference. 10. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.