Case: KAPILABEN AMBALAL PATEL &amp; ORS Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT &amp; ANR

after by the late Ambalal Purshottamdas Patels constituted attorney and that therefore it was not necessary for them to approach this Honble Court in the matter. The petitioners are agriculturists and not conversant with the intricacies of law were not aware that on Ambalal Purshottamdas Patels death the Authority of his constituted attorney Kamlesh Parekh had come to an end. Though Kamleshbhai Parekh has informed the petitioners of the objections likely to be raised on behalf of the appellants in the said Letters Patent Appeal, he has also informed the petitioners that he was not aware that he could not rely upon the power of attorney given by Ambalal Purshottamdas Patel after his death and in fact has regretted putting the petitioners in the awkward position. The petitioners submit that under the circumstances the time taken in the prosecution of the Special Civil Application No. 8402 of 1999 and the said Civil Application and the Letters Patent Appeal by the respondents be excluded in considering the time taken by the petitioners to approach this Honble Court in the matter. The petitioners submit that they are approaching this Honble Court as expeditiously as the circumstances of the case would permit. The petitioners further submit that the delay, if any, on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Honble Court has not in any manner caused any prejudice or detriment to the respondents. The petitioners submit that this Honble Court be pleased to entertain the Petition and not to reject it on the ground of delay, acquiescence or laches. (emphasis supplied) The earlier part of the writ petition deals with the factual background and assertion that the appellants still continue to be in physical possession of the stated land and was using it for agricultural purpose, as can be noticed from the Revenue record. Indeed, the Revenue record may have presumptive value, but that can be rebutted, which in this case has been done by the respondent-State by relying on the Possession Panchnama and the subsequent proceedings including the application submitted to the Mamlatdar, Baroda City in right earnest for entering the name of the State Government in the Revenue records, dated 11.4.1986, and pursuant to which entries had been effected on 26.9.1989 and 15.2.2000 respectively. 16. Obviously, therefore, the appellants thought of the last attempt to assail the Possession Panchnama dated 20.3.1986 itself without seeking any further relief of declaration regarding the earlier proceedings which had attained finality. 17. The Division Bench, in our opinion, therefore, was right in concluding that the writ petition filed by the appellants after lapse of 14 years was hopelessly barred by delay and suffered from laches. We are in agreement with the said view taken by the High Court in the peculiar facts of the present case. 18. Strikingly, in this appeal by special leave, a vague ground has been raised to challenge the said conclusion of the Division Bench. Further, no substantial question of law has been formulated in the appeal by special leave in that regard. Furthermore, in the grounds all that is asserted is that the High Court erred in holding that there was delay of 14 years in filing of writ petition and in not appreciating that the notice under Section 10(5) of the 1976 Act, dated 23.1.1986, was not served upon Ambalal Parsottambhai Patel as he had already expired on 31.12.1985 and the notice sent to him was returned back on 2.2.1986 unserved with remark said owner has expired. Further, the legal heirs of Ambalal Parsottambhai Patel ought to have been served with the said notice. From the factual matrix already stated hitherto, these grounds, in our opinion, are of no avail to the appellants. It is manifest from the acknowledgement produced by the respondent-State that the first notice under Section 10(5) issued to Ambalal Parsottambhai Patel was duly served on 26.12.1985. By the time second notice under Section 10(5) was issued on 23.1.1986, Ambalal Parsottambhai Patel had died (on 31.12.1985). The second notice was also issued to others, namely, Bhikhabhai Maganbhai Patel, Natvarbhai Bhailalbhai Patel and Jayantibhai Babarbhai Patel. Be that as it may, we are not inclined to reverse the conclusion recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court that the writ petition filed by the appellants was hopelessly delayed and suffered from laches. That is a possible view in the facts of the present case. 19. The respondents had additionally relied on the decision of this Court in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (supra), wherein the Court adverted to the exposition in Balwant Narayan Bhagde vs. M.D. Bhagwat & Ors. (1976) 1 SCC 700 ( paragraph 28) , Balmokand Khatri Educational and Industrial Trust vs. State of Punjab (1996) 4 SCC 212 ( paragraph 4) and Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs. A. Viswam (Dead) by LRs. (1996) 8 SCC 259 ( paragraph 9) regarding the settled legal position that it is difficult to take physical possession of the land under compulsory acquisition. Further, that the normal mode of taking possession is drafting the Panchnama in the presence of Panchas and taking possession and giving delivery to the beneficiaries is accepted mode of taking possession of the land. Subsequent thereto, the retention of possession would tantamount only to illegal or unlawful possession. Reliance is also placed on paragraphs 14 to 16 of Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma (supra). However, it is not necessary for us to dilate on these aspects having agreed with the conclusion recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court that the writ petition filed in the year 2001 by the appellants with limited relief of questioning the Possession Panchnama dated 20.3.1986, suffered from laches. The Division Bench of the High Court noted that the learned single Judge completely glossed over this crucial aspect of the matter, and we find no reason to depart from that conclusion. 20. In view of the above, it is not necessary for us to dilate on other contentions raised by the appellants or by the respondent- State on merits.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]15. After cogitating over the rival submissions and the relevant record, it is manifest that the appellants have resorted to all possible pleas. First, the application for exemption under Section 20 of the 1976 Act was moved, which was allowed by the competent authority on 6.3.1980, but the appellants chose to withdraw the same. That request was eventually granted by the competent authority on 1.2.1985. The appellants then waited till the notification under Section 10(3) of the 1976 Act was issued on 25.7.1985 and opted for remedy of exemption under Section 21 by filing an application on 22.8.1985. That came to be rejected on 15.12.1986 against which decision a review application was filed only by Devikaben Chandubhai Bhailalbhai alongwith her three siblings, after lapse of two years. Nevertheless, the same was entertained by the authority concerned and after quashing the entire order in appeal, a remand order came to be passed on 19.9.1998. Even in review proceedings, the fact of State authorities having taken forcible possession of the surplus/excess land on 20.3.1986 vide Possession Panchnama, was reiterated, as can be discerned from the order dated 19.9.1998. It is not clear as to why the appellants did not take clue at least from such unambiguous stand taken by the respondent and forthwith proceed to assail the stated stand of the State (of having taken over forcible possession on 20.3.1986). Besides taking possession, the respondent had determined the compensation for which notice under Section 11 was issued to the appellants on 17.5.1986. It is not the case of the appellants that they were unaware even about that development until 2001. No such plea is taken by the appellants in the writ petition filed in the year 2001. It is only after the competent authority declined to issue No Objection Certificate vide order dated 19.5.1999, they thought of changing the track by taking advantage of the repeal Act having come into force on 30.3.1999. However, they chose to file the writ petition only in the name of Kamleshbhai Parekh in the capacity of Power of Attorney holder of late Ambalal Parsottambhai Patel, being SCA No. 8402/1999, little realizing that the authority given by Ambalal Parsottambhai Patel had come to an end after his demise on 31.12.1985 itself. No doubt the learned single Judge was persuaded to quash the entire proceedings which had culminated with taking forcible possession of the surplus/excess land vide Possession Panchnama dated 20.3.1986, being vitiated and/or abated. However, it is only after the other appellants realised that the decision of the learned single Judge in SCA No. 8402/1999 was flawed and has been justly assailed by the State Government on that count by way of LPA No. 460/2002, they chose to file the present writ petition (SCA No. 12602/2001). In the said writ petition, however, no disclosure has been made as to why these appellants did not assail the Possession Panchnama dated 20.3.1986 in earlier point of time including when the existence of this document was specifically pleaded by the respondent-State, in particular, in the review applicationThe earlier part of the writ petition deals with the factual background and assertion that the appellants still continue to be in physical possession of the stated land and was using it for agricultural purpose, as can be noticed from the Revenue record. Indeed, the Revenue record may have presumptive value, but that can be rebutted, which in this case has been done by the respondent-State by relying on the Possession Panchnama and the subsequent proceedings including the application submitted to the Mamlatdar, Baroda City in right earnest for entering the name of the State Government in the Revenue records, dated 11.4.1986, and pursuant to which entries had been effected on 26.9.1989 and 15.2.2000 respectively16. Obviously, therefore, the appellants thought of the last attempt to assail the Possession Panchnama dated 20.3.1986 itself without seeking any further relief of declaration regarding the earlier proceedings which had attained finality17. The Division Bench, in our opinion, therefore, was right in concluding that the writ petition filed by the appellants after lapse of 14 years was hopelessly barred by delay and suffered from laches. We are in agreement with the said view taken by the High Court in the peculiar facts of the present case18. Strikingly, in this appeal by special leave, a vague ground has been raised to challenge the said conclusion of the Division Bench. Further, no substantial question of law has been formulated in the appeal by special leave in that regard. Furthermore, in the grounds all that is asserted is that the High Court erred in holding that there was delay of 14 years in filing of writ petition and in not appreciating that the notice under Section 10(5) of the 1976 Act, dated 23.1.1986, was not served upon Ambalal Parsottambhai Patel as he had already expired on 31.12.1985 and the notice sent to him was returned back on 2.2.1986 unserved with remark said owner has expired. Further, the legal heirs of Ambalal Parsottambhai Patel ought to have been served with the said notice. From the factual matrix already stated hitherto, these grounds, in our opinion, are of no avail to the appellants. It is manifest from the acknowledgement produced by the respondent-State that the first notice under Section 10(5) issued to Ambalal Parsottambhai Patel was duly served on 26.12.1985. By the time second notice under Section 10(5) was issued on 23.1.1986, Ambalal Parsottambhai Patel had died (on 31.12.1985). The second notice was also issued to others, namely, Bhikhabhai Maganbhai Patel, Natvarbhai Bhailalbhai Patel and Jayantibhai Babarbhai Patel. Be that as it may, we are not inclined to reverse the conclusion recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court that the writ petition filed by the appellants was hopelessly delayed and suffered from laches. That is a possible view in the facts of the present caseHowever, it is not necessary for us to dilate on these aspects having agreed with the conclusion recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court that the writ petition filed in the year 2001 by the appellants with limited relief of questioning the Possession Panchnama dated 20.3.1986, suffered from laches. The Division Bench of the High Court noted that the learned single Judge completely glossed over this crucial aspect of the matter, and we find no reason to depart from that conclusion20. In view of the above, it is not necessary for us to dilate on other contentions raised by the appellants or by the respondent- State on merits.