Khazani Devi vs State of Haryana and Others

Surya Kant, J.—The petitioner has, through this writ petition filed on 09th March, 2014, laid challenge to an order dated 07th March, 2008 [Annexure P-7] whereby the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estates, Faridabad has declined to recall his previous order dated 01st January, 1996.

The facts may be noticed briefly.

Smt. Birwati was owner of the land measuring 5 kanals 4 marlas as per her share in the total land measuring 123 kanals 16 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Mewla Maharajpur, Tehsil & District Faridabad. The above stated land was proposed to be acquired by the State of Haryana vide notification dated 2nd August, 1989, followed by Section 6 notification and the Award dated 07th October, 1991. Meanwhile, Smt. Birwati died on 24th April, 1991 and the petitioner inherited her share she being the legal heir. The petitioner on coming to know of the award, filed a reference u/s 18 on 27th November, 1991 for re-determination of the compensation by the Civil Court.

The reference was put up before the Land Acquisition Collector on 6th October, 1994 by the revenue officials along with a report that the petitioner was not the owner of the land as claimed in the reference. The Land Acquisition Collector vide Memo No. 3108 dated 11th October, 1994, sent through the registered post, therefore, asked the petitioner to send the proof of ownership. The petitioner did not respond to that letter. Thereafter, another letter was sent by the registered post dated 08th February, 1995, a copy of which was endorsed to the petitioner''s Advocate also. None of them sent any reply to the said letter also. The Land Acquisition Collector thereafter passed an order on 01st January, 1996 whereby the reference u/s 18 was "filed" for want of proof of ownership. This letter was also sent to the petitioner vide Memo dated 09th January, 1996.

The petitioner is said to have sent a legal notice on 15th April, 2008 asking the Land Acquisition Collector to send the reference made by her u/s 18 to the District Judge, Faridabad but finding no response, she approached this Court in CWP No. 8042 of 2008 which was disposed of on 14th May, 2008 with a direction to the Land Acquisition Collector to take cognizance of the legal notice and decide the same by passing a speaking order. This Court further directed the Land Acquisition Collector "to forward the reference made by the petitioner u/s 18 of the Act within next one month, if the decision arrives in her favour".

In compliance to the above mentioned directions, the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estates, Faridabad passed the impugned order dated 03rd July, 2008 observing as follows:-

In view of the above facts, it is thus clear that the reference petition u/s. 18 of the L.A. Act of the petitioners was filed by the Land Acquisition Collector after giving full opportunity to the petitioners. Further, when a reference petition is disposed of once by the Land Acquisition Collector, such order can not be re-opened at the level of the Land Acquisition Collector Moreover, the present petitioner woke up after more than 12 years of order dated 1.1.1996 [supra] passed by the Land Acquisition Collector as the petitioners had been informed about the order dated 1.1.1996 vide Memo No. 323 dated 9.1.1996. Thus no action can be taken on filed reference petition u/s 18 at this stage. The legal notice dated 15.4.2008 is disposed of accordingly in compliance with the order dated 14.5.2008 [supra] of the Hon''ble High Court.

The petitioner has chosen to assail the above stated order after a lapse of more than 5 1/2 years.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the considered view that this writ petition must fail on account of inordinate and unexplained delay and laches. Even if it is assumed that the order dated 01st January, 1996 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector was without jurisdiction and that the question whether the petitioner was the owner of the land for which reference u/s 18 was sought could be decided by the Civil Court only, yet it was imperative upon the petitioner to challenge that order before an appropriate forum within some reasonable period. The petitioner slept over the matter for 12 long years and did nothing till the year 2008 when she first served a legal notice and then approached this Court.

The petitioner did not again bother to challenge the impugned order dated 3rd July, 2008 for 5 1/2 long years. There is not even a whisper in the writ petition, what to talk of plausible reasons, as to what prevented the petitioner from ventilating her grievances before this Court or any other Forum within some reasonable period. It is not the petitioner''s case that she had no means to come to the Court or that she suffered from any type of disability in seeking justice. The conspicuous silence is suggestive of the fact that the petitioner allowed the grass to grow under her feet and volunteered to abandon her rights. No case to interfere with the impugned order is made out at this stage.

Dismissed.