Avula Papaiah vs Union Of India

None for the appellants.

Ms. P.Bhavana Rao, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for respondents No.2, 5, 6 and 7.

This intra court appeal emanates from an order dated 21.03.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition preferred by the appellants, namely W.P.No.23637 of 2000, has been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

Facts giving rise to filing of this writ appeal briefly stated are that admittedly the appellants were pattadars of the agricultural land measuring Acs.14.00 in Survey No.127 situated at Quthbullapur Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. They have been in continuous possession of the said land. Subsequently, the General Manager, Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited, has taken possession of the appellants’ land measuring Acs.8.04 guntas in Survey No.127 (hereinafter referred to as, “the subject land”) as well as the land of the other villagers on 11.01.1962. The appellants thereupon filed the writ petition in the year 2000 assailing the action of the respondents No.3 to 6 in acquiring the subject land without initiating any land acquisition proceedings and without payment of any compensation as illegal and arbitrary and violative of Article 300 A of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge by order dated 21.03.2006 inter alia held that the appellants have approached the Court after an inordinate delay of 38 years which disentitles them to any relief. In the aforesaid factual background, this writ appeal has been filed.

We have heard learned Government Pleader and have perused the record.

Admittedly, the appellants were assigned the subject land. It is also not in dispute that the possession of the aforesaid land along with other lands in the Village was taken over by the State Government and the same was handed over to the Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited. It is also not in dispute that some of the villagers had filed a writ petition before this Court which was allowed on 16.07.1993 and the official respondents were directed to either put the said petitioners in possession or in the alternative, were directed to take steps for acquisition of the land and to pay the compensation. The order passed by a Bench of this Court was upheld by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.664 of 1989. However, the appellants in the present case who also reside in the same Village did not initiate any timely action seeking compensation. After 38 years, the appellants filed the writ petition seeking a direction for payment of compensation.

It is trite law that extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary in nature. It is also trite law that delay defeats equity and this Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not grant relief to an indolent person who has slept over his rights (See S.S.Balu v. State of Kerala (2009) 2 SCC 479, Vijay Kumar Kaul v. Union of India (2012) 7 SCC 610 and U.P.Power Corporation Limited v. Ram Gopal (2021) 13 SCC 225).

The normal rule is that when a particular set of persons are given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit and not doing so would amount to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. However, the aforesaid principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of delay and laches as well as acquiescence. The similarly situated persons who did not challenge the wrongful action and acquiesced to the same would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delay would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim (See State of U.P v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015) 1 SCC 347).

In the backdrop of the aforesaid legal principles, we may advert to the facts in hand. In the instant case, the appellants, though were entitled for payment of compensation, they have slept over their rights and have approached this Court after an inordinate delay of 38 years for which no explanation has been offered. From the conduct of the appellants, it can safely be inferred that they were fence-sitters and have approached belatedly. The delay and laches disentitle them to any relief in exercise of the extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any ground to differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge.

The writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.