http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  2744 of 2002

PETITIONER: Haryana State Handloom & Handicrafts Corporation Ltd. & Anr.                                          

RESPONDENT: Jain Shool Society                                               

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/10/2003

BENCH: S. N. VARIAVA & H. K. SEMA

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

S. N. Variava J

This Appeal is against a Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana  High Court dated 21st March, 2001. On 29th October, 1976 a Notification under Section 4 read with  Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued. An award came to  be passed on 30th September, 1977. Possession of the land was taken  and the land vested in the Government on 5th June, 1980. The Respondents filed a reference under Section 18 of the Land  Acquisition Act for enhancement of the compensation. They thereafter  also filed an appeal in the High Court against the Judgment of the  Reference Court. On 2nd February, 1999 the Respondents filed a Writ Petition  challenging the acquisition on the ground that the urgency clause  could not have been invoked. This Writ Petition has been allowed by  the impugned Judgment. It was submitted that the order of the High Court was just and  equitable. It was submitted that the Respondents had patiently waited  for all these years in order to see whether the land was put to use for  the purpose for which it was acquired. It was submitted that merely  because the Respondents had given, the State and the acquiring body,  time to put the land to use for the purposes for which it was acquired  their right to file the Writ Petition could not be affected.  We see no  substance in this submission.  If the Respondents were aggrieved by  the fact that the land was not being put to use for the purpose for  which it was acquired, even though the Urgency Clause was invoked,  they did not need to wait for over 22 years to file the Writ Petition.  To  be also remembered that the Respondents had filed a Reference under  Section 18 as well as an Appeal to the High Court for enhancement of  compensation.  This, therefore, was not a ground which justified the  gross delay and latches in filing the Writ Petition.   Mere fact that the  land was not put to use for the purpose it was acquired by itself did  not justify the delay and latches. It was next submitted that the Respondents did not file the Writ  Petition because some other party had challenged the acquisition and  got a stay order from a Court of law.  It was submitted that the Writ  Petition was filed only after that litigation was disposed of.  We see no  substance in this submission also. That litigation had nothing to do  with the Respondents’ or the acquisition of the Respondents’ land.   In  the Writ Petition, filed by the Respondents, there is not even a word  about those proceedings.  The fact of those proceedings only came on  record in the reply filed by the State.  The State sought to justify, non  use of the land for the purpose for which it was acquired, on ground of  that litigation.  Merely because this fact was mentioned by the State it  did be afford Respondents an excuse to justify delay and latches on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

their part. It was next submitted that even though there were delay and  latches on the part of the Respondents they were justified in filing the  Writ Petition as the fraud was being played by the State and the  acquiring body.  It was submitted that the land was sought to be  transferred to some other body even though the acquisition was on  behalf of Appellants.  It was submitted that the Respondents filed the  Writ Petition as this fraud came to their knowledge.  We see no  substance in this contention also.  In the Writ Petition there is no  ground of fraud.  These are also facts which came to light as a result  of the reply filed by the State in the Writ Petition.   It was the State  who mentioned that the Appellants did not have the money to develop  the land and that therefore the land was proposed to be transferred to  some other party.   This would afford no ground for entertaining a Writ  Petition which was filed 22 years after the Section 4 Notification had  been issued.    Recently, in the case of Northern Indian Glass Industries vs.  Jaswant Singh reported in (2003) 2 SCC 335, this Court considered the  question whether a Writ Petition filed after 17 years of issue of a  notification under Section 4 could be entertained.  This Court has held  that such a Writ Petition must not be entertained.  It is held that the  Writ Petition must be dismissed on the grounds of delay and latches  itself.   It is held that mere non payment of enhanced compensation or  the fact that the land had not been put to use for the purpose of which  it was acquired would be no ground for justifying delay and latches.   We are in full agreement with the view expressed therein. In this case, there is absolutely no explanation for the delay and  latches of over 22 years, particularly when the Respondents had  applied for enhancement of compensation.  The only ground given by the High court in justifying delay is as  follows: "Mr. Gupta contends that the petition is belated.  We  are unable to accept the contention.  The respondent is  trying to take advantage of its own wrong.  The petitioner  had waited patiently to see if the respondent would utilize  the land.  When it found that nothing was being done, the  petitioner has approached this Court.  The petitioner  cannot be accused of any delay so as to disentitle it to the  relief.  The delay, if any, shows the bonafides of the  petitioner."

In our view, this reasoning is entirely unsustainable and erroneous.   The Respondents did not need to wait 22 years to see that nothing  was being done to utilize the land.  The High Court was entirely in  error in stating that the Respondents could not be accused of any  delay and that the delay in fact showed the bonafides of the  Respondents.    Further, the High Court seems to have overlooked the  fact that the Respondents had applied for enhancement of  compensation and had filed a Writ Petition only after those  proceedings were over.         In our view, the Judgment of the High Court is unsustainable and  is accordingly set aside.  The Writ Petition filed by the Respondents  stands dismissed.   Accordingly the Appeal is allowed.  The Respondents shall pay to  the Appellants costs fixed at Rs. 5,000/-.