Karnataka High Court
Shri. N. Shankarappa vs State Of Karnataka on 12 January, 2018
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
Bench: B.V.Nagarathna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
WRIT PETITION Nos.16812-16816/2016 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI N.SHANKARAPPA
S/O LATE SRI THAMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
2. SMT.PARVATHAMMA
W/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
3. SMT.VIJAYALAKSHMI
D/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA,
W/O C.RAMAKRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
4. SHRI R.KANTHARAJ
S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
5. SHRI R.SURESH
S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT NO.11,
1ST FLOOR, 2ND MAIN, 4TH CROSS,
OPP. VETERINARY HOSPITAL,
NAGASANDRA, THYAGARAJANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 028.
... PETITIONERS
[BY SRI SANGAMESH R.B., ADV.]
2
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE-560 020,
BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. BHAVANI HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETY LTD., NO.239,
NEAR UMA THEATRE,
BULL TEMPLE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 010,
BY ITS SECRETARY. ...RESPONDENTS
[By SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A. PATIL, AGA FOR R-1.)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING
TO DECLARE THAT THE PERMISSION GRANTED BY THE
GOVERNMENT DATED 11.10.1979 (ANENXURE-D) HAS THE
EFFECT OF ANNULLING THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION
DATED 09.05.1968 (ANNEXURE-B) AND THE FINAL
NOTIFICATION DATED 28.10.1971 (ANNEXURE-C) IN SO
FAR AS THE ENTIRE EXTENT OF THE LAND MEASURING
32.36 GUNTAS AS INCLUDED IN THE ORDER DATE
11.10.1979 (ANNEXURE-D).
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
3
ORDER
Petitioners claim to be owners of land measuring 4 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.17/12 of Kathriguppe Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, have sought the following reliefs:
1. "Declare that the permission granted by the government dated 11.10.1979 (Annexure-D) has the effect of annulling the preliminary notification dated 9.5.68 bearing No. ADM/A.10-(S)3/64 (Annexure-B), and the final notification dated 28.10.71 bearing No.HMA.106 MNJ-71 (Annexure-C), in so far as the entire extent of the land measuring 32.36 Guntas as included in the order dated 11.10.79 (Annexure-D),
2. Declare that the land measuring to an extent of 20 Guntas in Sy.No.17/12 of Katriguppe Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore (more fully described in the schedule below) has not been acquired under the preliminary notification dated 9.7.68 (Annexure-B) and the final notification dated 28.10.1971 bearing No.HMC.106 MNJ-71 (Annexure-C).
4
3. Declare that the 3rd Respondent society has no rights of whatsoever nature in view of the "JOINT MEMO" filed by the 3rd Respondent society in W.P.No.14896/1989.
In the alternative:
4. declare that the entire notifications, preliminary notification dated 9.7.68 bearing No.ADM/a.10-(s).3/64 (Annexure-B) and the final notification dated 28.10.1971 bearing No.HMA.106 MNJ-71 (Annexure-C) have lapsed in view of Section 24 of the New Land Acquisition and Re-habilitation Act. In the alternative:
5. Declare that the Preliminary notification dated 9.7.68 bearing No.ADM/A.10-(S).3/64 (Annexure-B) and the final notification dated 28.10.1971 bearing No.HMA.106 MNJ-71 (Annexure-C) have lapsed in view of the fact that respondent authorities have abandoned the schedule land measuring 20 Guntas belonging to the petitioners."
2. Learned Counsel for Petitioners has explained in detail, transactions and events concerning aforesaid lands; that City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore ['CITB', for 5 brevity], issued Preliminary Notification dated 9.7.1968 under Section 16 of the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 [hereinafter referred to as 'Act', for short]. The same was followed by declaration and final Notification issued on 28.10.1971 under Section 18[1] of the said Act. It appears that Petitioners had entered into an Agreement on 14.10.1973 to sell the land in question to Respondent No.3- Housing Co-operative Society. Thereafter, Petitioners sought permission from the State Government under the provisions of Urban Land [Ceiling & Regulations] Act, 1976 ['ULC Act', for short] for alienation of the said land. The State Government by Order dated 11.10.1979 permitted alienation of the said land to an extent of 4 acres 20 guntas. It is submitted by learned Counsel for Petitioners that on 6.8.1981, Petitioners alienated four acres of land to Respondent No.3-Society under four registered sale deeds being for one acre each; that in respect of 20 guntas there has been no alienation at all. According to learned Counsel for Petitioners, said extent of 20 guntas remained with Petitioners.
6
3. When the matter stood thus, the State Government by Order dated 26.8.1988 allotted what is known as bulk allotment of lands to Respondent No.3- Society for formation of housing colonies. The same was challenged by several land owners including Petitioners; that the Bangalore Development Authority ['BDA', for short] sold 10 acres 29¼ gunta and 9 acres 10¾ gunta by registered sale deed dated 24.10.1998 to Respondent No.3- Society; that the extent of 20 guntas referred to above did not form part of the bulk allotment made to Respondent No.3-Society. But, the Respondent No.3-Society stealthily included this extent of 20 guntas in its layout plan and got the same sanctioned. On coming to know the said fact, Petitioners herein preferred Writ Petition No.14896/1989 before this Court. By joint memo dated 10.08.1992, controversy with Respondent No.3-Society was settled. Thereafter, by order dated 20.2.1995, Writ Petition was dismissed on the premise that contentions raised by Petitioners, vis-à-vis, bulk allotment did not survive for consideration on account of amendment made to Bangalore 7 Development Authority Act, 1976 ['BDA Act', for short]. Despite that, Writ Appeal No.1017/1995 was filed by two of the petitioners before the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench disposed of the writ appeal by permitting Petitioners therein to withdraw the Writ Petition by its order dated 14.03.1997.
4. Contending that there was interference made by Respondent No.3-Society, two of the Petitioners herein preferred O.S. No.7741/1999 before the City Civil Court seeking relief of declaration of title and that they are in possession of suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties and for a decree of permanent injunction as well as relief of mandatory injunction. By Judgment and decree dated 10.03.2011, the said suit was dismissed. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that Petitioners have filed RFA No.1232/2011 which is pending before this Court; that certain allottees of the suit schedule properties have also preferred Regular First Appeals which are pending before this Court. When the matter stood thus, on 24.3.2016, 8 Petitioners have preferred these writ petitions before this Court seeking the aforesaid reliefs.
5. I have heard learned Counsel for Petitioners at length.
6. Drawing my attention to aforesaid facts and documents concerning them, he contended that even if Section 24[2] of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ['2013 Act', for brevity] does not apply to the present case, even then, Petitioners are entitled for a declaration that Respondent-BDA has abandoned acquisition insofar as 20 guntas of lands are concerned. He submitted that there has been no development in respect of the said extent of land as it continues to remain in possession of Petitioners herein. That possession not having been taken by BDA and the same continuing with Petitioners would imply that BDA has abandoned the acquisition in respect of said 20 guntas. Since for the last several decades, BDA has not developed 9 the said lands and their possession continues with the Petitioners, they are entitled for a declaration and other reliefs sought for by them in these writ petitions, is the submission.
7. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for Respondent No.1, on advance notice, drew my attention to the fact that acquisition notifications were issued way back in the years 1968 and 1971; that Petitioners have at no point of time assailed the acquisition process. In fact, despite there being acquisition of land in question, they sought to alienate 4 acres out of 4 acres 20 guntas to Respondent No.3-Society. In fact, the same has been alienated on 6.8.1981; the fact that 20 guntas of land has not been alienated would not imply that the same has been excluded from acquisition. The permission granted for alienation is not under the provisions of the Act or the BDA Act or any other enactment pertaining to acquisition. It is under the provisions of ULC Act as the lands in question are urban lands; that permission has nothing to do with acquisition initiated by CITB. Drawing 10 attention to the prayer sought for by Writ Petitioners in Writ Petition No.14896/1989 and prayers sought in the present writ petitions, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that Petitioners are not entitled to any relief, firstly, on account of petitioners not making out any case with regard to abandonment of acquisition and secondly, any relief sought for by them in the context of acquisition at this point of time is highly belated. He drew my attention to the findings of the trial Court in O.S. No.7741/1992 and submitted that there is no merit in these Writ Petitions and that Writ Petitions may be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
8. The detailed narration of facts and contentions does not call for a reiteration except to highlight the fact that in respect of 4 acres 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.17 which belonged to Petitioners at one point of time, notifications for acquiring the same apart from other lands were issued by CITB on 9.7.1968 and 28.10.1971. Since then there has been no challenge made for acquisition by Petitioners. In fact, 4 acres out of 4 acres 20 guntas were 11 sold by Petitioners to Respondent No.3-Society. Possibly, Petitioners were under the impression that as far as remaining 20 guntas are concerned, the same has been deleted from acquisition and that it would have re-vested in them or continued to vest in them and they did not alienate that extent to Respondent No.3-Society. In fact, in Writ Petition No.14896/1989, that is precisely the prayers sought for by the Petitioners herein. The prayers made in the said writ petitions against the State of Karnataka, represented by its Secretary, Housing Urban Development Department, BDA and Respondent No.3-Society read as under:
"WHEREFORE, the petitioners respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to:-
a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction declaring that the order at Annexure-F bearing No.HUD/CEC 79 dtd.11-10-79 has the effect of denotifying the lands belonging to the petitioners mentioned in schedule to Annexure-F to an extent of 4 acres 20 guntas acquired under Annexure-D bearing No.ADM/A/10(S)3/64 dated 9-5-68 and Annexure-E bearing No.HUD/106/MNJ/71 dtd.28-10-71;12
b) Quash the order under Annexure-Compensation bearing No.HUD 210 MMX 87
dtd.26-8-88 allotting 20 acres of lands to the third respondent, treating the same as illegal and contrary to law;
c) Direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to deliver vacant possession of the land allotted to the 3rd respondent to the petitioners;
d) Declare that the respondents have not acquired any right, title or interest owner the land restrained by the petitioners to an extend of 20 guntas while executing the sale deed; and
e) Pass such other orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, in the circumstances of the case, in the interest and equity."
9. The Petitioners while assailing the bulk allotment of 20 guntas of land made by BDA to Respondent No.3-Society, in fact, sought a categorical declaration that the order passed by Respondent No.1 therein on 11.10.1979 under the provisions of ULC Act was to be construed as denotification of the lands belonging to Petitioners to the extent of 4 acres 20 guntas subsequent to 13 the final Notification dated 28.10.1971. In the Writ Petition, Petitioners filed a joint memo on 10.8.1992 which is extracted as under:-
"JOINT MEMO
1. The petitioners were the owners of 4 acres 20 guntas of lands in Sy.No.17/12 of Kathriguppa, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.
2. The Bangalore Development Authority has passed an order on 26.08.1988 releasing the land acquired from the scheme subject to certain conditions. The Bangalore Development Authority has therefore no claim over 4 acres 20 guntas which earlier belonged to the petitioners. In the above writ petition, the petitioners have claimed that 4 acres 20 guntas should be reconveyed to them after declaring that the order passed by the Bangalore Development Authority is irregular.
3. The 3rd respondent-Society has been put in possession only to an extent of 4 acres and the extent which is retained with the Petitioners are shown by the letters B.C.D.E. in the sketch attached to the sale deed dated 6.8.1981 executed by the petitioners in favour of the 3rd respondent-Society. The 3rd respondent-Society has no objection for the petitioners enjoying the said 20 guntas of land and in turn, the petitioners have no objection for the 3rd respondent-Society 14 enjoying the 4 acres of land purchased from these petitioners.
4. In the above circumstances, the above writ petition may be disposed of by declaring that the petitioners are entitled to retain 20 guntas of land out of Sy.No.17/12 of Kathriguppa and the 3rd respondent-Society may utilize 4 acres of land in Sy.No.17/12 of Kathriguppa which has been removed from the scheme by the Bangalore Development Authority.
Sd/- Sd/-(Ramakrishnappa)
Advocate for PETITIONER No.1
PETITIONERS
Sd/- Sd/- (N.Shankarappa)
Advocate for PETITONER No.2
3rd RESPONDENT
Sd/-
Secretary,
Bhavani Housing Co-
operative Society Limited
(RESPONDENT No.3)"
10. The joint memo was signed by Petitioners therein whose successors in interest are Petitioners herein and by the Secretary of Respondent No.3-Society. There is no order on the joint memo in Writ Petition No.14896/1989.
The writ petition was simply dismissed on account of amendment made to BDA Act incorporating the provisions 15 for bulk allotment and for regularizing the same and by holding that petition does not survive for consideration, which reads as under:
"In view of the amendment B.D.A. III Amendment Act of 1993, the contentions in the Writ Petition (W.P.NO.14896/89) do not survive and accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed."
11. However, Petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions preferred Writ Appeal No.1017/1995 before the Division Bench of this Court. Before the Division Bench, Petitioners sought leave to withdraw the writ petition in view of joint memo. The Division Bench permitted the writ petition to be withdrawn and consequently set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in following terms.
1. "A writ petition has been filed before the Court in Writ Petition No.14896/1989 challenging certain orders made by the Government denotifying certain lands from acquisition and allotting 20 acres of land to the 3rd Respondent. During the pendency of the writ petition, a memo was filed on 16 18/8/1992 by the appellants and the 3rd Respondent herein (who were writ petitioners and 3rd respondent in writ petition). However, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the basis that the contentions raised in the petition do not survive or consideration. Thereafter the matter was brought up before the Court for further hearing. Even thereafter the order made earlier was maintained.
2. Aggrieved by the order made by the learned single Judge, this writ Appeal has been filed. At the time hearing, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants (writ Petitioners) would be satisfied if they are permitted to withdraw the writ petition in view of the Joint Memo filed on 10.8.1992 signed by the petitioners and the 3rd respondent in the writ petition instead of disposing of the writ petition in terms of the order made by the learned single Judge.
3. In the circumstances, it would be more appropriate to close the matter on the basis 17 of the submission of the learned counsel that he seeks leave of the Court to withdraw the writ petition in view of the Joint Memo filed. In that view of the matter, the order made by the learned single Judge on 20.2.1995 in Writ Petition No.18496/1989 shall stand set aside and the petitioners/appellants and permitted to withdraw the writ petition as stated earlier.
Writ Appeal shall stand disposed of
accordingly."
contending that the defendants being the allottees of land in the 3rdrespondent Society, were interfering with petitioners' land measuring 20 guntas, although the alienation made by them was only to the extent of 4 acres and not 4 acres 20 guntas, O.S.7741/1999 was filed against the said allottees. Interestingly, in that suit, neither the BDA nor the State were arrayed as parties. The suit filed seeking the reliefs of declaration of title and consequential relief of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction, was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 10.3.2011. It is stated that the petitioners herein have preferred RFA No.1232/11 before 18 this court assailing the said judgment and decree and the same is pending consideration.
12. Be that as it may, what is significant to note is that the defendants in the said suit examined the officer of the BDA as their witness. The trial court has inter alia observed as under:
"As already noted in his cross-examination, P.W.1 has stated that Ex.P22 shows that the Bangalore Development Authority has acquired only four acres of land in the survey number in question and has left 20 guntas in the said survey number, without acquiring. He says that the said 20 guntas of land is de-notified. But Ex.P22 does not reflect the said aspect in any manner. He has also admitted that the Bangalore Development Authority has formed 12 sites in suit-A schedule property and that all of them are in their possession.
The observation of the Hon'ble High Court in MFA.1771/2001 to the effect that, the plaintiffs at the most are entitled for enhanced compensation, for the acquisition of 4 acres and 20 guntas of land belonging to them and nothing more.
...
The documents on record do show that an extent of 73 acres and 12 guntas of land in Survey No.17 of Kathriguppa Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore Soluth Taluk, has been acquired for the purpose of forming Banashankari III Stage Layout that the said extent included 4 acres and 20 guntas of land belonging to the plaintiffs that the said extent (of 4 acres and 20 guntas) was handed over 19 to the 1st defendant for the formation of a private layout under a possession mahazar that an award has been passed by the concerned Land Acquisition Officer that they (plaintiffs) have received it and still claim that they retained 20 guntas of land in the said survey number that this contention has been negative in various legal proceedings that in MFA 1771/2001, it has been held that, the only remedy available to the plaintiffs is to claim enhancement of the compensation, by seeking reference to the appropriate court.
...
The records of the case show that even the plaintiffs have preferred writ appeal and the special leave petition before the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court and both the proceedings have been dismissed, as against them (plaintiffs). So, there is no specific order by either of the Hon'ble Courts."
13. From the above, it becomes clear that the petitioners herein had preferred Special Leave Petitions against the above judgment and decree passed by the Division Bench of this court in W.A.No.1017/95. It may be that the Regular First appeal preferred before this Court against the said judgment and decree is yet to be adjudicated. But the fact remains that the petitioners had filed W.P.14896/89 precisely seeking a declaration that 20 guntas of land out of 4 acres 20 guntas had been excluded from acquisition, or for that matter, deleted or de-notified. 20 In fact, the relief of such a declaration was sought before this court, but the petitioners did not pursue the said remedy and before the Division Bench, withdrew the writ petition.
14. The reliefs sought for by the petitioners in the present writ petitions, although is in the nature of a declaration as if, there has been lapse of acquisition or abandonment of acquisition in respect of 20 guntas of land, the fact remains that petitioners herein who had attempted to seek such a relief in the earlier writ petition to the effect that there had been de-notification or deletion of the said land, did not pursue that remedy. Thereafter, when O.S.7741/1999 was filed against the allottees of the 3rd respondent society, neither the State nor the BDA was arrayed as defendant in the suit. In fact, the findings given by the trial court in the said suit are wholly against the petitioners herein and at this belated point of time, they have filed these writ petitions once again seeking the relief of declaration on the ground that there has been lapse of acquisition.
21
15. So far as the invocation of Section 24 of the 2013 Act is concerned, this court in W.P. Nos.17852- 17856/14 and connected cases (D.D. 14.12.2017) (M/s. Evershine Monuments and others v. The State of Karnataka and others) has held that the said provision does not apply to acquisitions initiated either under the B.D.A. Act or in respect of acquisition under the provisions of CITB Act in W.P. Nos.60045-60048/2014 (D.D.2.1.2018).
16. More importantly, the petitioners have approached this court after several decades seeking various declaratory and other reliefs as stated above. Filing of these writ petitions are wholly belated and therefore, have to be dismissed on the ground that this court ought not to entertain such writ petitions by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following decisions:
"a) In a recent decision of the Apex Court reported in 2011 AIR SCW 1332 [State of Orissa & Anr. V. Mamata Mohanty] the consideration of an application where delay and laches could be attributed against a person who 22 approaches in a writ petition is discussed by stating that though the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to writ jurisdiction, however, the Doctrine of Limitation being based on public policy, the principles enshrined therein are applicable and writ petitions could be dismissed at the initial stage on the ground of delay and laches.
b) In the case of Shankar Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. v. M.Prabhakar & Ors. [2011 AIR SCW 3033], the Apex Court at Para 53 has given the relevant considerations, in determining whether delay or laches in approaching the writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The same reads as follows;
"53. The relevant considerations, in determining whether delay or laches should be put against a person who approaches the writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution is now well settled. They are: (1) there is no inviolable rule of law that whenever there is a delay, the court must necessarily refuse to entertain the petition; it is a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion, and each case must be dealt with on its owns facts. (2) The principle on which the court refuses relief on the ground of laches or delay is that the rights accrued to others by the delay in filing the petition should not be disturbed, unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay, because court should not harm innocent parties if their rights had emerged by the delay on the part of the petitioners. (3) The satisfactory way of 23 explaining delay in making an application under Article 226 is for the petitioner to show that he had been seeking relief elsewhere in a manner provided by law. If he runs after a remedy not provided in the Statute or the statutory rules, it is not desirable for the High Court to condone the delay. It is immaterial what the petitioner chooses to believe in regard to the remedy. (4) No hard and fast rule, can be laid down in this regard. Every case shall have to be decided on its own facts. (5) That representations would not be adequate explanation to take care of the delay."
c) Similarly, the Apex Court in the case of Sawaran Latha and others v. State of Haryana and others [2010(4) SCC 532] has held that when the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued in the year 2001 and the award was passed in the year 2004, writ petitions filed for quashing of the notification in the year 2009 have to be dismissed on the ground of delay as the litigants who dare to abuse the process of the Court in disregard of the law of limitation, delay and laches should not be encouraged.
d) In Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai v. M.Meiyappan & Others [2010 AIR SCW 7130], when the acquisition proceedings were challenged ten years after notifications were issued, the Apex Court held that the High Courts should not have entertained the writ petition 24 particularly after passing of the award and that the High Court should have dismissed the writ petition at the threshold on the ground of delay and laches.
e) In Swaika Properties (P) Limited and another v. State of Rajasthan & others [2008 (4) SCC 695], the Apex Court has followed its earlier decisions in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. The Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt.
Ltd. & others [(1996) 11 SCC 501] by observing as follows:
"After the award under Section 11 of the Act was made by the Collector he is empowered under Section 16 to take possession of the land, if the possession was not already taken, exercising power under Section 17(4). Thereupon, the land shall vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. It is well settled law that taking possession of the land is by means of a memorandum (Panchnama) prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer and signed by Panch witnesses called for the purpose. Subsequently, the collector hands over the same to the beneficiary by means of another memorandum or panchnama, as the case may be. But in this case Section 91 of the BMC Act statutorily comes into play which would indicate that the Land Acquisition Officer while making award should intimate to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of the amount of compensation determined and all other expenses. The Corporation shall pay over the same to the Land Acquisition Officer." 25 It was held that the writ petition had been filed after possession was taken over and the award had become final and therefore, the writ petition had to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
f) The order of the High Court dismissing the writ petition was confirmed by the Apex Court in Banda Development Authority, Banda v. Motilal Agarwal and others [(2011) 5 SCC 394], as the filing of the writ petition was 9 years after the declaration was issued under Section 6(1) of the Act and the delay of six years after passing of the award and the delayed filing of the writ petition was a reason for refusing to entertain the prayer made in the writ petition. It was held that in a challenge made to the acquisition of land for the purpose of public purpose Courts have consistently held that the delay in filing the writ petition should be viewed seriously, if the petitioner fails to offer plausible explanation for the delay.
g) Reference can also be made to another decision of the Apex Court reported in (1996) 6 SCC 445 in the case of State of Rajasthan & Others v. D.R.Lakshmi & others, wherein it has cautioned the High Court not to entertain writ petitions where there is inordinate delay, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
26
h) Similarly, in the case of The Municipal Council, Ahmednagar & anr. v. Shah Hyder Beig & others [(2002) 2 SCC 48], it has been opined thus:-
"The real test for sound exercise of discretion by the High Court in this regard is not the physical running of time as such but the test is whether by reason of delay, there is such negligence on the part of the petitioner so as to infer that he has given up his claim or where the petitioner has moved the Writ Court, the rights of the third parties have come into being which should not be allowed to be disturbed unless there is reasonable explanation for the delay."
i) In fact in S.S.Balu and others v. State of Karnataka [(2009) 2 SCC 479], it has been held that delay defeats equity and that relief can be denied on the ground of delay alone even though relief is granted to other similarly situated persons who approach the courts in time.
j) To a similar effect is the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. v.
Chinthamaneni Narasimha Rao & others [(2012) 12 SCC 797].
k) In Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu [(2014)4 SCC 109], on the doctrine of delay and laches and approach of the Court in that regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled as under:
27
"16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant - a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, 'procrastination is the greatest thief of time' and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis."
(l) Further, recently in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir v. R.K. Zalpuri and others [(2015) 15 SCC 602], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that the writ Court while deciding a writ petition he has to remain alive to the nature of the claim and the unexplained delay on the part of the writ petitioner. Stale claims are 28 not to be adjudicated unless non-interference would cause grave injustice."
16. Secondly, the petitioners cannot seek the aforesaid reliefs on the principle of Order II Rule 2, C.P.C., 1908, and Section 11 of C.P.C., as they had earlier approached this court in W.P.14869/89 which they ultimately withdrew. In that view of the matter, the writ petitions cannot be considered any further. They are, therefore, dismissed. I however refrain from imposing costs on the petitioners herein.
Sd/-
JUDGE AN/- & vgh*