Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4185 OF 2006

Union of India & Ors. … Appellants  Vs. Har Dayal … Respondent

O R D E R

R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.

The respondent claims to be the Karta of the ‘HUF of  Tek  Chand’  consisting  of  himself  and  his  two  brothers  (Harichand and Lachhman Das). Respondent’s family migrated  from Pakistan to India in 1947. Respondent and his two  brothers filed claims before the competent authority on  22.9.1950, as refugees/displaced persons seeking allotment  of  land  as  compensation  in  lieu  of  their  lands  in  Pakistan. Their claim was verified and registered for 7  Standard Acres and 3.1/4 Units vide order dated 5.11.1952  by the Claims Officer, Delhi, under the Displaced Persons  (Claims) Act, 1950. Towards partial satisfaction of the  said verified claim, initially 5 Standard Acres and 4.1/3

Units situated in Bawana, Delhi was allotted and delivered  to them. The question of allotment of remaining land was  pending for several years and in the year 1965 the Office  of the Regional Settlement Commissioner informed the Land  Allotment Officer that after taking note of the land that  was already allotted in partial satisfaction, the balance  agricultural land allotted to them (respondent and his two  brothers) was only 2 Standard Acres and 8.11/12 Units.  

2. The respondent claims that he was thereafter pursuing  his request for allotment of the remaining land, on behalf  of himself and his two brothers as Kartha of HUF. It is  stated that the file was not traceable for some years in  the  concerned  Ministry  and  subsequently  the  file  was  traced  and  transferred  to  the  Land  and  Building  Department.  Ultimately  by  orders  dated  12.9.1989  and  21.9.1989,  the  respondent  and  his  two  brothers  were  categorically informed by the Ministry of Home Affairs  (Rehabilitation Divison-Settlements) that no agricultural  land  was  available  in  the  rural  areas  of  Delhi  for  allotment, and Rs.383.50 being the compensation payable to  each of them, corresponding to the extent which was not  allotted, was credited to their account in terms of the  relevant  rules.  Even  after  the  receipt  of  the  said  communication the respondent and his brothers did not take  any  legal  action.  In  the  year  1994,  the  respondent  

2

obtained  a  letter  of  recommendation  from  a  Central  Minister  and  tried  to  revive  the  stale  issue.  The  representation was again rejected. It is thereafter, in  the year 1996, that the respondent filed a writ petition  in the Delhi High Court seeking allotment of the land.

3. A learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the  writ  petition  in  part  with  costs  of  Rs.5000/-  on  16.5.2003. The learned Single Judge was of the view that  after all these years it was not possible to issue any  direction  for  allotment  of  agricultural  land  to  the  respondent  as  such  land  was  not  available.  He  was,  however, of the view that the appellants, due to their  carelessness, had deprived the respondent of the allotment  of the land. Therefore he directed the appellants to work  out  the  market  value  of  the  extent  of  land  to  which  respondent was entitled as on the date of the filing of  the writ petition in 1996 and make payment within two  months.  The  appeal  filed  by  the  Union  of  India  was  dismissed  by  a  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  on  31.1.2005. The said order is challenged in this appeal by  special leave.

4. The  claim  of  respondent  and  his  brothers  for  compensation by way of agricultural land was verified and  

3

certified as 7 Standard Acres and 3.1/4 units in 1952.  Depending on the availability, 5 Standard Acres and 4.1/3  units of land was allotted and delivered to them. In 1965,  it  was  confirmed  that  as  per  the  verified  claim,  the  respondent  and  his  brothers  were  still  entitled  to  2  Standard Acres and 8.11/12 Units. As per the rules, though  normally  compensation  was  payable  in  terms  of  rural  agricultural land from the compensation pool created with  evacuee lands, cash compensation was payable in the event  of non-availability of rural agricultural land. The cash  compensation  payable  under  the  Rules  was  Rs.450/-  per  standard  acre  and  nothing  more.  It  is  in  these  circumstances,  due  to  non-availability  of  agricultural  land,  he  and  his  brothers  were  informed  that  cash  equivalent of compensation, that is Rs.383.50 each was  credited to them and they could draw the same.  

5. The respondent chose to approach the High Court only  in  1996  seeking  allotment  of  the  remaining  land.  He  contends  that  under  the  provisions  of  the  Displaced  Persons  (Compensation  &  Rehabilitation)  Act,  1954,  the  central government had to take necessary steps for the  custody,  management  and  disposal  of  the  lands  in  the  compensation pool and make it available to the displaced  persons; that he could not be denied allotment of the  balance land as per the verified claim, on the ground that  

4

the evacuee lands were encroached; that as he had settled  down in Delhi, under the Rules there was a duty cast on  the  appellants  to  allot  land  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Delhi; and that if the evacuee lands are not available on  account  of  encroachment,  it  is  the  duty  of  Central  Government to evict the encroachers and give him the land  as per the entitlement.

6. On the other hand, the appellants pointed out that  the respondent was claiming allotment in pursuance of a  claim verified as long back as 22.9.1950; that he had not  pursued the matter for one reason or the other since the  year 1965 when the Settlement Commissioner certified that  the respondent and his brothers were still entitled to the  balance of 2 Standard Acres and 8.11/2 Units; that from  1965  to  1989,  the  respondent  did  not  take  any  legal  action; that in 1989, the respondent was informed that he  was only entitled to compensation as provided under the  Act and the Rules as no land was available; that even  after such categorical rejection he did not approach the  court and in the circumstances, the writ petition filed in  the year 1996, was liable to be rejected on the ground of  delay and laches. It is submitted that having slept over  his  rights  for  over  40  years,  the  respondent  can  not  belatedly demand that the encroachers should be removed  

5

and the land should be made available. It was submitted  that  the  Act  and  Rules  contemplated  payment  of  compensation to displaced persons, usually in the form of  allotment of agricultural land situated in a rural area,  but where land was not available, the rules contemplated  payment of compensation as provided in the Rules (at the  rate of Rs.450/- per acre) and under no circumstances, the  respondent could claim anything more.         

7. The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench have  totally ignored the enormous delay of more than 30 years  on the part of the respondent in approaching the Court.  This  Court  has  repeatedly  held  that  merely  giving  representation will neither extend the limitation nor wipe  out the delay and laches. [See : S.S. Rathore vs. State  of MP – AIR 1990 SC 10]. Further the respondent and his  brothers were categorically informed in September, 1989  that due to non-availability of agricultural land, they  were entitled only to cash equivalent of compensation as  per the rules and therefore, Rs.383/50 each being their  share of compensation was to their credit and they could  draw the same. Respondent could have challenged that order  on the ground that he was entitled to land and not cash.  But he did not do so. The refusal to allot the balance  land whether right or wrong, attained finality. Obviously,  

6

it could not be reopened by filing a writ petition in  1996, more than 45 years after the verification of the  claim,  and  7  years  after  categorical  refusal  to  allot  land. The writ petitions ought to have been rejected on  the ground of delay and laches. There was no question of  rewarding  the  delay  on  the  part  of  respondent,  by  directing payment of current market value of 1996 for the  undelivered land, contrary to the Rules.

8. The orders of the learned Single Judge and Division  Bench are also bad for vagueness. The learned Single Judge  held that as no land was available the respondent was not  entitled  to  land  but  nevertheless  held  that  the  compensation of Rs.383.50 calculated in accordance with  the Rules, amounted to a pittance after all these years  and therefore he should be given the market value of the  land as on the date of the writ petition. But different  areas  of  Delhi  have  different  market  values.  In  fact,  there  is  no  rural  agricultural  land  available  and  no  standard market price for agricultural land. The value of  land is always with reference to a particular land or a  land in a specified area. We fail to understand how the  appellants can be expected to calculate the value of the  ‘land’ in 1996 and pay him the value as compensation.   

7

9. On the facts and circumstances, the judgment of the  High Court directing payment of the market value as in  1996 cannot be sustained. The writ petition ought to have  been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

10. But  as  the  High  Court  (learned  Single  Judge  and  Division Bench) have chosen to exercise the discretion to  ignore the delay and entertain the writ petition, we do  not propose to interfere with the exercise of discretion.  As  the  rules  contemplated  allotment  of  land  being  staggered depending upon availability of land, during the  pendency  of  this  appeal,  the  appellants  very  fairly  offered  to  allot  the  respondent’s  share  in  remaining  agricultural land in some rural area in Rajasthan. This  has been referred to in the orders of this Court dated  5.8.2005, 31.7.2008 and 22.10.2009. We therefore dispose  of the appeal recording the submission that appellants  will deliver the respondent’s share in the extent of 2  Std. Acres and 8.11/12 Units of agricultural land in the  State of Rajasthan to appellant within six months from  today. It is clarified that appellant will have no choice  in the matter and whatever land is offered in Rajasthan,  should have to be accepted. If he is not willing to accept  such land, he may receive the sum of Rs.383.50.         

8

11. The offer of land by appellant in this case, being  peculiar to the facts of this case shall not be treated as  a precedent in any other stale claims of other displaced  persons.  

___________________J. (R V Raveendran)

New Delhi; ____________________J. November 24, 2009. (K S Radhakrishnan)   

9