JUDGMENT : Since the similar issue is involved in both the writ petitions, the same are taken up together with the consent of learned counsel for the parties and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. W.P.(C) No. 6502 of 2022 has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to pay adequate compensation in terms with the Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition (Rehabilitation and Resettlement) Act, 2013 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2013’] along with statutory interest in lieu of acquisition of the petitioner’s land appertaining to Khata No. 16, Plot Nos. 18, 19, 20, 24, 476, 477, 479, 494, 495, 496, 502, 707, 708, 709, 710, 713, 720, 725, 728, 729, 724, 732, 739, 741, 742, 743, 744, 785, 791, 792, 795, 799, 801, 804, 810, 894, 929, 1064, 1067, 1071 & 1082, Mouza-Jarangdih, Thana No. 16, District Bokaro, measuring total area 13.29 Acres as well as to provide employment to the family members/descendants of the Khatiani raiyat including the petitioner. 3. W.P.(C) No. 6511 of 2022 has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to pay adequate compensation in terms with the Act, 2013 along with statutory interest in lieu of acquisition of the petitioners’ land appertaining to Khata No. 6, Plot Nos. 286, 296, 298, 299, 303, 341, 342, 344, 345, 346, 347, 454, 455, 457, 895, 1226, 1643, 1659 & 1679, Mouza-Jarangdih, Thana No. 16, District-Bokaro, measuring total area 6.73 Acres as well as to provide employment to the family members/descendants of the Khatiani raiyat including the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the writ petitions have been preferred by the petitioners for their own cause as well as espousing the cause of other co-sharers. The lands involved in W.P.(C) No. 6502 of 2022 are recorded in the name of Bharath Mian in the Khatian and the petitioner along with other descendants have paid the rent of the said lands till the revenue year 2015-16. The lands involved in W.P.(C) No. 6511 of 2022 are recorded in the name of Gondo Mian in the Khatian and the petitioners along with other descendants have paid the rent of the said lands till the revenue year 2021-22. 5. The lands involved in W.P.(C) No. 6511 of 2022 are recorded in the name of Gondo Mian in the Khatian and the petitioners along with other descendants have paid the rent of the said lands till the revenue year 2021-22. 5. It is further submitted that the Eastern Railway, Government of India had acquired the said lands vide notification dated 12.12.1922 which were subsequently transferred to the National Coal Development Corporation in the year 1956 and thereafter the same were transferred to Coal India Limited in the year 1975. Neither any award with respect to acquisition of the lands in question was prepared in favour of ancestors of the petitioners nor any proof relating to payment of compensation has been shown by the respondents to the petitioners. Even after purported acquisition of the lands in question, the petitioners are in possession of most of the lands, however, the respondent-CCL uses to take over the said lands as per its requirement and dispossesses the descendants of the original raiyats for utilizing the same for different purposes such as; extraction of coal, siding spot, transportation and other allied purposes. As and when the petitioners along with other co-shares of the lands visited the office of the respondent-CCL, they were informed that their lands had already been acquired, however, they failed to show any document as to how the said acquisition was made and whether any compensation was paid to the original raiyats. It is settled principle that the land acquisition proceeding completes only when the award is prepared, however, there is no document with the respondent-CCL in support of the fact that any award with respect to acquisition of the said lands was prepared in the year 1922. Under the said circumstance, the petitioners as well as the other co-sharers being the descendants of the recorded tenants are entitled to receive compensation for acquisition of the said lands in terms with the Act, 2013. The petitioners are poor and illiterate persons and hence their claim against dispossession from the said lands as well as non-payment of adequate compensation was raised through "Jarangdih Visthapit Adhikar Sangharsh Samiti" and in the said process several meetings were held between the Management of the Kathara Area, CCL and the Samiti, however, nothing effective came out. 6. The petitioners are poor and illiterate persons and hence their claim against dispossession from the said lands as well as non-payment of adequate compensation was raised through "Jarangdih Visthapit Adhikar Sangharsh Samiti" and in the said process several meetings were held between the Management of the Kathara Area, CCL and the Samiti, however, nothing effective came out. 6. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent-CCL submits that the present writ petitions are not maintainable as there is a huge delay in filing of the same. The respondent-CCL has no liability to make payment of compensation in lieu of acquisition of the lands in question. The onus lies upon the petitioners to prove that their lands were acquired without payment of compensation to the recorded tenants. Since the petitioners have failed to bring any document on record in support of their claim, the present writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. The petitioners have claimed adequate compensation as well as employment in lieu of acquisition of their lands in the year 1922 by the Eastern Railway, Government of India vide notification dated 12.12.1922. 8. Though the petitioners of both the writ petitions have claimed that the respective writ petitions have been filed by them for their own cause as well as espousing the cause of the other co-sharers, however, they failed to annex any letter of authorization issued by the other co-sharers to suggest that they have been empowered by their co-sharers to also espouse their grievances. As such, the present writ petitions are not maintainable on behalf of the other co-sharers. 9. Now, the question falls for consideration of this Court as to whether the individual claim of the petitioners for payment of compensation as well as employment in lieu of acquisition of their respective shares in the said lands is maintainable or not. 10. The admitted case of the petitioners is that the lands in question were acquired in the year 1922 and hence there is a huge delay in raising the claim for compensation as well as employment which has not been sufficiently explained by them. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners puts much reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Vidya Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2020) 2 SCC 569 . 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners puts much reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Vidya Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2020) 2 SCC 569 . In the said case, the land of the appellant was taken by the State in the year 1967-68 for construction of the Nadaun-Sujanpur Road, a major district road without taking recourse to acquisition proceedings or following due process of law. The stand of the State was that the land of the appellant was being used on the verbal consent of her predecessors-in-interest. Their Lordships observed that in the year 2004, similarly situated persons had moved before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh by filing writ petition being C.W.P. No. 1192/2004 and vide order dated 23.04.2007 passed by the High Court, the land acquisition proceeding was started by the respondent-State in the year 2008 under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, however, only with respect to the lands of the writ petitioners. Thereafter, the appellant along with her two daughters filed writ petition being C.W.P. No. 1736/2010 before the Himachal Pradesh High Court for grant of compensation for the land occupied by the State in 1967-1968. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 11.09.2013 holding that the matter involved disputed questions of law and fact for determination on the starting point of limitation, which could not be adjudicated in writ proceedings. The appellant was however granted liberty to file a civil suit. Aggrieved with the said order, the appellant filed a review petition which was dismissed vide order dated 13.05.2014. The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal preferred by the appellant holding as under:- “12.8. The contention of the State that the appellant or her predecessors had “orally” consented to the acquisition is completely baseless. We find complete lack of authority and legal sanction in compulsorily divesting the appellant of her property by the State. 12.12. The contention advanced by the State of delay and laches of the appellant in moving the Court is also liable to be rejected. Delay and laches cannot be raised in a case of a continuing cause of action, or if the circumstances shock the judicial conscience of the Court. 12.12. The contention advanced by the State of delay and laches of the appellant in moving the Court is also liable to be rejected. Delay and laches cannot be raised in a case of a continuing cause of action, or if the circumstances shock the judicial conscience of the Court. Condonation of delay is a matter of judicial discretion, which must be exercised judiciously and reasonably in the facts and circumstances of a case. It will depend upon the breach of fundamental rights, and the remedy claimed, and when and how the delay arose. There is no period of limitation prescribed for the courts to exercise their constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial justice. 12.13. In a case where the demand for justice is so compelling, a constitutional court would exercise its jurisdiction with a view to promote justice, and not defeat it. [P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N., (1975) 1 SCC 152 ] 13. In the present case, the appellant being an illiterate person, who is a widow coming from a rural area has been deprived of her private property by the State without resorting to the procedure prescribed by law. The appellant has been divested of her right to property without being paid any compensation whatsoever for over half a century. The cause of action in the present case is a continuing one, since the appellant was compulsorily expropriated of her property in 1967 without legal sanction or following due process of law. The present case is one where the demand for justice is so compelling since the State has admitted that the land was taken over without initiating acquisition proceedings, or any procedure known to law. We exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution, and direct the State to pay compensation to the appellant.” 12. In the aforesaid case, Their Lordships held that the delay and laches cannot be raised in a case of a continuing cause of action, or if the circumstances shock the judicial conscience of the Court. Delay may be condoned in exercise of judicial discretion in the facts and circumstances of a case and there is no period of limitation prescribed for the Courts to exercise their Constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial justice. Delay may be condoned in exercise of judicial discretion in the facts and circumstances of a case and there is no period of limitation prescribed for the Courts to exercise their Constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial justice. Their Lordships allowed the appeal preferred by the appellant in exercise of the power conferred under Articles 136 & 142 of the Constitution of India observing that the appellant had been divested of her right to property without being paid any compensation whatsoever for over half a century. 13. The facts and circumstance of the present case is entirely different from that of the aforesaid case. The petitioners themselves have admitted that their lands were acquired in the year 1922 vide notification dated 12.12.1922. They are however not sure as to whether any award was prepared with respect to the said lands or any compensation was paid against the said acquisition to the recorded tenants. They have rather contended that the respondent-CCL has no document to show as to how the said acquisition was made and whether any compensation was paid to the original raiyats. On bare perusal of Annexure-4/1 of both the writ petitions, which is the minutes of meeting held on 25.02.2016 between the "Jarangdih Visthapit Adhikar Sangharsh Samiti" and the Management of Kathara Area, CCL, it would be evident that a letter was written by the General Manager (Land and Reforms), HQ. CCL to General Manager, Kathara Area stating that the respondent-CCL had no liability to make payment of compensation for acquisition of the said lands. Thus, serious disputed question of fact is involved in the present case as to whether compensation for acquisition of the said lands was paid to the recorded tenants at the time of acquisition of the same in the year 1922. 14. In the case of Syed Maqbool Ali Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. reported in (2011) 15 SCC 383 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “12. The High Courts should also be cautious in entertaining writ petitions filed decades after the dispossession, seeking directions for acquisition and payment of compensation. 14. In the case of Syed Maqbool Ali Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. reported in (2011) 15 SCC 383 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “12. The High Courts should also be cautious in entertaining writ petitions filed decades after the dispossession, seeking directions for acquisition and payment of compensation. It is not uncommon for villagers to offer/donate some part of their lands voluntarily for a public purpose which would benefit them or the community as for example, construction of an access road to the village or their property, or construction of a village tank or a bund to prevent flooding/erosion. When they offer their land for such public purpose, the land would be of little or negligible value. But decades later, when land values increase, either on account of passage of time or on account of developments or improvements carried out by the State, the landholders come up with belated claims alleging that their lands were taken without acquisition and without their consent. When such claims are made after several decades, the State would be at a disadvantage to contest the claim, as it may not have the records to show in what circumstances the lands were given/donated and whether the land was given voluntarily. Therefore, belated writ petitions, without proper explanation for the delay, are liable to be dismissed. Be that as it may.” 15. In the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board & Ors. Vs. T.T. Murali Babu reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant — a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis.” 16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the individual claim of the petitioners for payment of adequate compensation and providing them employment in lieu of acquisition of their respective shares in the lands in question is also not maintainable as they have failed to make out any case under the extraordinary writ jurisdiction after such a huge delay of more than 100 years that too the documents on record are grossly insufficient. 17. The present writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. 18. The petitioners are however at liberty to take recourse before the appropriate Court of civil jurisdiction for redressal of their grievances, if permissible under law.