THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.18208 OF 2001 DATE: 23-02-2010 Between: 1. Mandadi Krishna Reddy and another … Petitioners and 1. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nalgonda and 3 others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.18208 OF 2001 ORDER: The petitioners seek a mandamus from this Court to declare the action of the respondents in not paying compensation for their land in Sy.No.137 and 778 of an extent of 1-161/2 guntas and 0-19 guntas situated at Garidepally and Ponugodu village of Garidepally Mandal, Nalgonda District, as arbitrary and illegal. They also seek a consequential direction to the respondents to initiate land acquisition proceedings for payment of compensation for the said lands. Petitioners claim to be the owners of the above said land. They would submit that, in the year 1978, the Nalgonda Zilla Parishad wanted to form a by-pass road from Garidepally village to Dhupadu village limits which connected the Panchayat Raj road leading to Suryapet town via Penpahad, Singareddypalem and Dhorajpally villages; the 1st respondent acquired their land in Sy.No.1137 for the 66 feet width road situated within the limits of Garidepally and Ponugodu villages; and despite the petitioners’ resistance the 1st respondent took advance possession and handed over the land to the contractor for formation of the road. It is the petitioners’ case that the Special Deputy Collector had requested the Executive Engineer, Command Area Development Authority (CADA) to inspect the spot and send a requisition to his office in the light of the representation of the villagers; their lands were acquired in the year 1978-79 for improving the Zillaparishad road under CADA; and compensation should be paid to the affected farmers. The Executive Engineer, by his letter dated 29.12.1999, informed that land acquisition proceedings had been submitted earlier on 14.6.1978 for the land required i.e., 10.00 meters from center of the road on either side; R & B stones were fixed at a distance of 10.00 meters from the center of the road; the ryots were cultivating at several places all along the road and even within the road boundary of 10.00 meters from the center of the road; and acquisition of further 17 feet on either side of the existing 66 feet wide road may not be required. The Special Deputy Collector was requested to withdraw land acquisition proposals on the above road. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nalgonda, on receipt of the legal notice dated 18.3.2000, informed the Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj that action be taken regarding acquisition of land and payment of compensation to the concerned ryots for formation of Panchayat Raj roads which was subsequently handed over to the R & B department. In the counter-affidavit, filed by the Chief Executive Officer, Z.P. Nalgonda, it is stated that the Panchayat Raj engineering department had originally formed the road in the year 1965 without changing the then existing alignment of the cart track which was used to serve the villagers and farmers of Garedepalli, Ponugodu and other nearby villages for regular paddy transport and other daily needs; the road was later handed over to the R & B department in the year 1978; the State Government had established CADA in 1978 for formation of roads and to improve the existing roads in rural areas; the then Executive Engineer (R & B) CADA had submitted development proposals for the said road to the Special Collector, Land acquisition, Nagarjuna Sagar Dam for an extent of upto 66 feet; and the request of the Executive Engineer for acquisition of land of 17 feet on either side of the existing road was withdrawn taking into consideration the representation of the villagers thereby leaving a road boundary of 33 feet from the center of the road on either side. It is submitted that, when the road was laid by the Panchayat Raj department in the year 1965, the local ryots/landlords were requested to donate land for the purpose; the road was formed after taking the willingness and consent of the villagers and farmers of Garedepally, Ponugodu and nearby villages; no objections were lodged by any of the villagers when the road was formed in the year 1965 including the petitioners herein; the petitioners had sought compensation for the land in Sy.No.1137 in the year 2001; and the representation made seeking compensation after a period of 35 years could not be considered. It is stated that the Panchayat Raj department had never given any assurance that they would pay compensation to the petitioners; and the writ petition is belated and is liable to dismissed on the ground of laches. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent it is stated that the original road upto 66 feet was formed by the Zilla Parishad, Nalgonda and was handed over to the R & B department in the year 1978; the then Executive Engineer (R &B) CAD defunct division, Miryalguda had submitted alienation proposals to the Special Deputy Collector for widening the 66 feet road, originally formed by the Panchayat Raj department; and by letter dated 29.12.1999 the Special Deputy Collector was informed that acquisition of further 17 feet on either side of the Zilla Parishad road was not required. In his reply affidavit, the petitioner would deny that the road was originally formed in the year 1965 or of the existence of a cart track. They would submit that the 1st respondent, in his letter dated 26.6.2000, had admitted the claim of the petitioners; the petitioners’ land fell within the road as originally formed upto 66 feet; they were entitled for payment of compensation; and non- payment of compensation gave rise to default for each day of non- payment giving rise to a fresh cause of action under Section 22 of the Limitation Act read with Article 87 of Schedule-I thereof; and there were no laches on the petitioners’ part. In view of the specific assertion by the 1st respondent in his counter affidavit that the road was formed in the year 1965, and as it is also the case of the 3rd respondent that the road was handed over to them by the Panchayat Raj department, the question which necessitates examination in the first instance is whether the writ petition filed in the year 2001, for payment of compensation for the lands belonging to the villagers used for formation of the road in the year 1965, can be entertained after a lapse of 35 years. While the 1st respondent would assert that the road was formed after obtaining consent from the villagers, the petitioners would deny the said contention. Whether or not such consent was obtained from the villagers for laying the road, and whether or not the villagers had agreed to give up their land for formation of the road free of cost, cannot be ascertained now that thirty five years have passed by. Sri G.Elisha, Learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent would submit that the records relating to a period prior to 1965 would not be available. It is in this context that the question of laches assumes relevance. Sri B.Papa Rao Goud, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, would place reliance on Raju S. Jethmalani v. State of Maharashtra[1], Government of Andhra Pradesh v. N.Subrahmanyam[2], Government of A.P. v. N.Rami Reddy[3], K.Sai Reddy v. Dy. Executive Engineer, Irrigation and Command Area Development[4], and Nokhia v. State of H.P.[5] in support of his contention that delay, by itself, was no ground to deny the relief claimed by the petitioners. On behalf of the respondents both the Learned Government Pleader for R & B and Sri G.Elisha, Learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent, would place reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Digambar[6] and Government of A.P. v. Kollutla Obi Reddy[7]. In N.Subrahmanyam2 a Division Bench of this Court held that the delay in filing the writ petition may be overlooked when the writ petition is admitted and the petitioner has a positively good case on merits. In K.SaiReddy4 a Learned Single Judge of this Court held that taking over possession of the land, without initiating land acquisition proceedings, was in violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India as also the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. I n Nokhia5, a Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court held that non-payment of compensation, despite possession being taken 8 years earlier should be compensated by payment of equitable compensation in addition to the compensation, solatium and interest payable under the Land Acquisition Act. I n Raju S.Jethmalani1 the Supreme Court held that, in order to provide amenities to residents of an area, private lands can be acquired in order to effectuate the public purpose but, without acquiring private lands, the Government could not deprive the owner of the land from using that land for his residential purposes. I n N.Rami Reddy3, a Division Bench of this Court held that, in terms of Article 300-A, no person should be deprived of his right to property except in accordance with law and that the petitioners should not be deprived of their legitimate dues only on the ground of delay and laches. It is necessary to note that in Kollutla Obi Reddy7 the Land Acquisition Officer had determined the market value in accordance with the Nagarjuna Sagar Project (Acquisition of Lands) Act, 1956 whereunder the compensation required to be paid for acquisition of land was far less than what was provided for under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Acquisition under the Nagarjuna Sagar Project (Acquisition of Lands) Act, 1956 was in the year 1992 and the writ petitions were filed in February, 1997. The validity of such action was under challenge in the writ petition and a direction was sought to determine the market value on the date of the notification i.e., in the year 1991 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act without resorting to the Nagarjuna Sagar Project (Acquisition of Lands) Act, 1956. In this context the Supreme Court observed: “……..We shall first deal with the plea relating to the maintainability of the writ petition filed after long passage of time. In a catena of decisions this Court has held that High Court should not entertain writ petitions when there is delayed challenge to notification under Section 4 (1) and declaration under Section 6 of the act. (See Aflatoon and Ors. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi (1975 (4) SCC 285), State of T. N. and Ors. v. L. Krishnan and Ors. (1996 (1)SCC 250) and Municipal Corporation of greater Bombay v. Industrial Development investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (1996 (11)SCC 501). The High Court was moved in these matters by writ petitions long after Section 4 (1)Notification and Section 6 declarations were made. On that ground alone the writ petitions should not have been entertained…….(emphasis supplied). In Digambar6, 38000 K.Ms. of road work was executed in 1971-72. Later, in the year 1991, an agriculturist filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Government to grant compensation for his lands alleged to have been utilized by the Government for laying a road without his consent. The Bombay High Court rejected the contention urged on behalf of the Government that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches holding that, in a Welfare State, the State Government could not take such an attitude when the citizens came before the Court and complained that they had been deprived of their property without following the due process of law and without paying compensation; it affected the valuable rights of the citizens to receive compensation; and, as there was no dispute that possession of the land was taken some time in the year 1972, proceedings should initiated under the Land Acquisition Act. Aggrieved thereby the Government of Maharashtra carried the matter in appeal and the Supreme Court observed: “……. How a person who alleges against the State of deprivation of his legal right, can get relief of compensation from the State invoking writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution even though, he is guilty of laches or undue delay is difficult to comprehend, when it is well settled by decision of this Court that no person, be he a citizen or otherwise, is entitled to obtain the equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution if his conduct is blame-worthy because of laches, undue delay, acquiescence, waiver and the like. Moreover, how a citizen claiming discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution against a State, could be relieved of his obligation to establish his unblameworthy conduct for getting such relief, where the State against which relief is sought is a welfare State, is also difficult to comprehend. Where the relief sought under Article 226 of the Constitution by a person against the welfare State is founded on its alleged illegal or wrongful executive action, the need to explain laches or undue delay on his part to obtain such relief, should, if anything, be more stringent than in other cases, for the reason that the State due to laches or undue delay on the part of the person seeking relief, may not be able to show that the executive action complained of was legal or correct for want of records pertaining to the action or for the officers who were responsible for such action not being available later on. Further, where granting of relief is claimed against the State on alleged unwarranted executive action, is bound to result in loss to the public exchequer of the State or in damage to other public interest, the High Court before granting such relief is required to satisfy itself that the delay or laches on the part of a citizen or any other person in approaching for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution on the alleged violation of his legal right, was wholly justified in the facts and circumstances, instead of ignoring the same or leniently considering it. Thus, in our view, persons seeking relief against the State under Article 226 of the Constitution, be they citizens or otherwise, cannot get discretionary relief obtainable thereunder unless they fully satisfy the High Court that the facts and circumstances of the case clearly justified the laches or undue delay on their part in approaching the Court for grant of such discretionary relief. Therefore, where a High Court grants relief to a citizen or any other person under Article 226 of the Constitution against any person including the State without considering his blame- worthy conduct, such as laches or undue delay, acquiescence or waiver, the relief so granted becomes unsustainable even if the relief was granted in respect of alleged deprivation of his legal right by the State. Therefore, where a High Court in exercise of its power vested under Article 226 of the Constitution issues a direction, order or writ for granting relief to a person including a citizen without considering his disentitlement of such relief due to his blameworthy conduct of undue delay or laches in claiming the same, such a direction, order or writ becomes unsustainable as that not made judiciously and reasonably in exercise of its sound judicial discretion, but as that made arbitrarily……… (emphasis supplied) The relief sought for in this writ petition is similar to the prayer in the writ petition filed before the Bombay High Court, which eventually resulted in the matter being carried in appeal to the Supreme Court in Digambar6. While the delay in Digambar6 is of 20 years, the delay herein is of nearly 35 years i.e., from 1965 to 2001. At this point of time, in the absence of the relevant records being available due to the long lapse of time of 35 years, the petitioners contention that the land was acquired without their consent cannot even be ascertained. The petitioners are disentitled to the relief sought for in this writ petition on the ground that they invoked the jurisdiction of this Court belatedly after a lapse of 35 years. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. __________ 23-2-2010 asp [1] (2005)11 SCC 222 [2] 2010(1) ALT 582 [3] Judgment in W.A.Nos.1417 of 2000 and batch dated 21.12.2000 [4] AIR 1995 AP 208 [5] AIR 1985 HP 88 [6] AIR 1995 SC 1991 [7] (2005)6 SCC 493