Vijendra Rai vs The State Of Bihar & Ors.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 and the learned counsel for the State.

The present writ petition has been filed with the following reliefs:

the petitioner and his ancestors purchased land of Mouza Piro, bearing Khata No. 373 old, 638 new, Plot No. 1804 old, 1731 new, from one Bir Bahadur Bhartee, by a registered sale deed, the petitioner being entitled to 1/6th share of the total 85 decimals of land so purchased jointly by 4 persons. Parasnath Rai was the grandfather of the petitioner, who had two sons, Jagdish Rai and Rajnath Rai. Jagdish Rai's wife Panwati Devi died issue-less in 2011, and Jagdish Rai died on 25.11.2014, following which the property devolved upon the petitioner as Class I legal heir, and the petitioner took possession of the land. The petitioner thereafter got his name mutated, and rent receipts came to be issued in his favour for Khata No. 638, Plot No. 1731. The petitioner filed an application for demarcation of the land before the Circle Officer on 21.06.2019 and deposited Rs. 1700/- for measurement, for which a receipt was granted on 11.11.2020, but no effective step was taken. The petitioner thereafter filed an application before the Sub Divisional Officer, Piro, Bhojpur for measurement of the land. During the course of measurement, it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that the land had been acquired by the Electricity Department without any payment and without any award having been made by the competent authority. When the petitioner approached the respondents for payment of compensation, it was disclosed that no proceeding for acquisition of the land had in fact been undertaken by the respondents, and due to urgent need, construction had already been started without any notice to the petitioner, nor had any amount been paid.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, is the title holder of the land in question by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 19.12.1967 and subsequent inheritance, with his name mutated and rent receipts issued in his favour and as such the respondents could not have acquired the land and commenced construction thereon without any notice, without following any procedure of acquisition and without payment of any compensation. It was further submitted that the land being commercial in nature, the petitioner is entitled to compensation at its commercial value.

Learned counsel for the State/Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 submitted, that it is evident from the Certified Land Plan dated 27.05.1977 that 3.62 acres of land in village Piro, including Survey Plot No. 1731 measuring 0.85 acre, was acquired for construction of a 33/11 K.V. Power Sub-Station Scheme, vide Declaration No. 1003 D.L.A. Electric 27/77 dated 10.03.1977, published in the District Gazette, through Land Acquisition Case No. 1/5 of 1977-78 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, possession whereof was handed over to the Electrical Engineer, Arrah on 27.05.1977.

Learned counsel for the State/Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 further submitted that in the said acquisition proceeding, an Award of Rs. 18,300.30 was determined in favour of Bir Bahadur Bharti, in respect of Survey Plot No. 1731 of 0.85 acre, and that the balance amount of Rs. 37,181/-, inclusive of the said sum, was deposited by Challan No. 02 dated 12.07.1979 in the Arrah Treasury.

Learned counsel for the Respondent Power Company submitted, that the land measuring 3.62 acres, including Plot No. 1731 of 85 decimals, was duly acquired long ago under the Land Acquisition Act pursuant to the aforesaid Declaration and L.A. Case No. 1/5 of 1977-78, and that it is evident from the sale deed contained in Annexure P/1 i.e., the petitioner’s own annexure to the writ petition that the land in question was conveyed by Bir Bahadur Bharti, to whom compensation had already been awarded.

Learned counsel for the Respondent Power Company further submitted that the acquisition had further attained finality inasmuch as Title Suit No. 75 of 1977 was dismissed, the consequent Title Appeal No. 53 of 1993 was also dismissed vide judgment dated 07.11.2003 in favour of the State, and that the possession of the acquired land was duly handed over to and continues to be utilized by the Electricity Department for public purposes and that the compensation amount was duly deposited with the competent Land Acquisition Authority regarding which no objection was raised at the relevant time, as such the writ petition suffers from gross delay and laches and is liable to be dismissed with costs.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records, it is clear that by way of this writ petition, the petitioner is attempting to challenge Land acquisition proceedings that concluded in 1977, and for which compensation has already been paid. Here, it is important to note that the petitioner’s claim is heavily barred by the doctrine of delay and latches. The doctrine follows a basic maxim: “Equity aids the vigilants, not those who sleep on their rights”.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v/s M.K. Sarkar reported in (2010)2 SCC 59, in para 15 and 16 held that;

(Emphasis Supplied)

opinion that “delay defeats equity” and the Courts will not assist the indolent or tardy.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.