IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

        CIVIL APPEAL NO.4583 OF 2008         (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6437 of 2007)

Chhabile @ Ram Newaj ……Appellant (s)  

VERSUS  

State of U.P. & Ors. ……Respondent (s)

O  R  D  E  R

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.   

3. A writ petition was filed by the appellant before the High

Court  of  Judicature  of  Allahabad  for  directions  to  the

respondents,  State  of  U.P.  and  Ors.,  to  make

compensation  at  the  market  rates  including  interest  in

respect of the lands acquired by them.  By an order dated

27th of March, 2006, the High Court dismissed the writ

application  holding  that  there  was  an  inordinate  and

unexplained  delay  in  filing  the  Writ  Petition.

Subsequent  to  the  rejection  of  the Writ  Application,  a

1

Review  Application  was  filed  for  the  purpose  of

reviewing the order dated 27th of March, 2006 rejecting

the writ application on the ground of delay and latches.

The  Review  Application  was  also  dismissed  by  a

Division  Bench of  the  High  Court  on the  ground  that

“no ground was made out in the Review Application to

review the order dated 27th of  March,  2006”.   Against

the aforesaid two orders, this Special Leave Petition has

been  filed  which,  on  grant  of  leave,  was  heard  in

presence of the learned counsel for the parties.   

4. We have heard the  learned counsel  for  the parties  and

perused  the  impugned  orders  rejecting  the  writ

application as well as the review application.  So far as

the order dated 27th of March, 2006 is concerned, we are

of the view, on consideration of the writ application, that

in fact, there was no inordinate delay in filing the writ

application because the wrong date was mentioned in the

writ petition which should be 10th of January, 2006, but

the same was written as 10th of January, 2005.  However,

without passing a speaking and reasoned order, the High

2

Court  rejected  the  writ  application  in  the  following

manner :-

“From a perusal of the record, it appears that there is inordinate  and  unexplained  delay  in  filing  the  writ petition.  The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of latches.         

5. So far as the order dated 4th of August, 2006 passed in

the  Review  Application  is  concerned,  the  same  was

rejected on the ground that no ground has been made out

for reviewing the order.  It also appears from the order

rejecting the review application that even on merits, no

ground  was  made  out  to  interfere  with  the  impugned

order dated 10th of January, 2006 passed by the Special

Land  Acquisition  Officer,  Varanasi,  which  was

challenged in the writ application.    

3

6. The order dated 4th of August, 2006 reviewing the writ

application on the aforesaid ground cannot be sustained.

We have  looked  into  the  averments  made  in  the  writ

application  and  the  statement  that  the  order  of  the

Special Land Acquisition Officer was passed on 10th of

January, 2006 and not on 10th of January, 2005. We do

not find any reason to reject the writ application on the

ground  of  delay.   In  this  view of  the  matter,  the  writ

petition should be restored and the impugned order dated

27th of March, 2006 is set aside.   

7.    In our view, the order rejecting the review application,

which  is  also  under  challenge,  is  also  liable  to  be  set

aside and accordingly, it is hereby set aside and the writ

petition is restored to its original file.  The High Court is

now requested to dispose of the writ petition on merits

and after giving hearing to the parties and after passing a

reasoned order in accordance with law.  The appeal is,

therefore, allowed to the extent indicated above.  There

will be no order as to costs.    

4

…………………………J. (TARUN CHATTERJEE)

…………………………J. (AFTAB ALAM)

NEW DELHI,

JULY 21, 2008.

5