^^ -ZcnQ SINGLE BENCH, IN THE HIGH COUkT OF JUDlCATURE AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION (Q NQ. ^<3 4£ /2011 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS ^•%^ ^'^.^^::::..--'" ^€^^ ^ '^ 1. Avinash Chandra Sondhi, S/oLate Rai Sondhi, Aged about 62 years. 2. Ku. Rai Sondhi, D/o Late Rai Sondhi, Aged about 23 years, (Both R/o Civil Lines, Durg (CG.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Chief Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, D.K.8. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG.) 2. The Land Acquisition Offlcer-cum-Sub- Divisional Officer, Village (Janjgiri), Patan, District Durg (CG.) ^s^w 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIQNERS: AP/^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA8PUR WRTTPETmON (0^0,7366 of2011 PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS Avinash Chandra Sondhi & Another. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Another. WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Sattsh K. Affiuhotri, J. Present: Shri Sanjay Shyam Agrawal, Advocate tbr the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER (Passed on 07U1 day ofDecember, 2011) 1. By this petitiorL the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to refer his a:pplications (Annexure P/2 and P/3) filed under section 18 ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short, 'theActf)for its determination. 2. Shri Agrawal; leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that fhe petitioners are brother and sisters and are fhe owners of land in question, bearing Khasra No. 678/1, 678/2, 678/3, 679/3, 685/2, total admeasuring 5.80 acres and Khasra No. 680, 685/2, total admeasurmg 7.24 acres, situated at village Jaiijgiri, District Durg. An acquisition proceeding was initiated by the respondent authorities in the year 1995 for providing the same to the National Themial Power and Grid. The award was passed by the respondent No. 2 on 18.06.1998 and the land of the petitioners were accordingly acquired and compensation was assessed to tfae tune of Rs. 4,76,428/- and 4,85,370/- respectively. Since the compensation assessed by the respondent No. 2 was on a lower side^ the petitioners moved an application underthe provisions ofsection 18 5. of the Act on 12.08.1998 and 18.08.1998 for its reference. However, the said applications were not referred by the respondent authorities to the Court for its proper detemiination. Thus, the petitioners were constrained to file a petition before this Court on 10.11.2003, being W.P. No. 3967/2003. The said petition was with(frawn on 16.02.2004 with liberty to make a representation before the authorities concemed. Pursuant to the order dated 16.02.2004, the petitioners submitted their representations on 09.01.2008, 19.05.2009, 23.09.2009,25.10.2009 and 26.06.2010. On the basis of said letters, tiie Collector Durg, while referring to the letter dated 23.09.2009 and 25.10.2009, issued memo dated 07.10.2009 and 16.10.2009 to tfae respondent N0. 2 and directed him to submit his report; however. nothmg has been done till date. Thus, this petition for the above-stated reliefs. On the other hand, Shri Thakur, leamed Panel Lawyer appearmg for the State/respondents submits that this petition is not maintainable on account of delay and laches on the part of the petitioners themselves. After withdrawing the earlier writ petition, the petitioners made representation after a period offour years. Heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, pemsed the pleadings and documents appended thereto. The writ petition filed eariier, was withdrawn by the petitioners on the ground that they want to make a representation to fhe respondent authorities onl6.02.2004, the petitioners comfortably took about four years and made representation only in the year 2008. Thus, it appears that the petitioners themselves were not ^ interested in disposal of their reference applications. Even otherwise, a second writ petition for the similar reliefs as sought for in the earlier writ petition, is not maintainable. 6. Section 18 ofthe Act provides for niakmg reference on the basis of written application made by an interested person to the Collector for determination of the Court in respect of measurement of fhe land; the amount of the compensatioiL the person to whom it is payable or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. Sub-section (2) of section 18 of the Act prescribes the time limit Under sub-section (2)(a) ofsection 18 of the Act, an application shall be made within a period ofsix weeks from the date of fhe Collector's award and in other cases, within six weeks from the receipt ofthe notice from the Collector under section 12, sub-section (2) or within six months from the date of fhe Collector's awarA whichever period shall first expire. 7. In the case on hand, the petitioner; even after grant of liberty by this Court to make a representation to the respondent authorities, slept over for more than four years for making a representation- Thus, at this stage, this writ petition cannot be entertained for issuance ofdirection as sought for by the petitioner. 8. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and other^ (Bhagwati, J. in para 10) observed as under : "10..... Jt may also be noted that the principle on which the Court proceeds in refusing relief ! (1974) 1SCC 317 to the petitioner on ground oflaches and delay ts tiliat the rights which have accmed to others by reason of the delay in filing the petition should not be allowed to be disturbed unless there is reasonable explanation for the delay. This prmciplc was stated in tlie following terms by Hidayatullah, C.J. in Tilok Chand vs. H.B. Munshf(supm): "The party claiming Fundamental Rights must move the Court before other rig^its come into existence. The action of courts cannot hanii iimocent parties if their rights emerge by reason ofdelay on the part ofthe person moving fhe Court." 9. In State ofM.P. vs. Nandkif, it was observed titiat that ths High Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. tfthere is inordinate delay on tihe part ofthe petitioner and such delay is not satisfactory explained, the High Court may declme to intervene and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It was also obser^ed that if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice cn third parties. When writ jurisdiction is mvoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation ofthird party rights in the meantime is an important factor which also weighs with tfae High Court in deciding whefher or not to exercise suchjurisdiction. 10. The Supreme Court in U.P. Jal Nigam and another vs. Jash^ant Singh andanothsr^, observed as under: 6The question of delay and laches has been examined by this Court in a series of decisions and laches has been considered to be an :AIR (1987)80 251 ' (2006)113cc 464 tB^^. vm^^ important tactor in exercise ofthe discretionary reliefunder Article 226 ofthe Constitution." 11. On laches aiid delay in agitating the grievances before the Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State ofPunjab and another vs. Balkaran Singh, observed as under: "22. According to us, the suit is also barred by acquiescence and estoppel. No one iii a ser^ice can sleep over the question ofseniority for more thaii 12 years and then come to court seeking a reliefwhich will upset the seniority ofa number of persons who had been shown as seniors in the respective seniority lists. Therefore, on the face ofit, a declaratory reliefthat will have the effect of altering a twelve-year-old and a nine- year-old seniority li&l could not have been granted by the courts below." 12. In Yunus (Baboobhai) A Hamid Padvekar v. State of Maharashtr(/, the Supreme Court observed as under: "Delay or laches is one ofthe factors which is to be bome in mmd by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers. In an appropriate case the High Court may reflise to invoke its extraordinary powers ifthere is such negligence or oimssion on the pari of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, cause& prejudice to the opposite party." 13. Applying well settled principles of law to tiie facts offhe case on hand, fhe writ petition is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge An^t 4 (2006)12 SCC 709 5 JT (2009) 3 SC 487