Jharkhand High Court
Chandrika Choudhary vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 April, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2025:JHHC:10965
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No.2824 of 2024
-----
1. Chandrika Choudhary
2. Chandra Kishore Choudhary
3. Prabhu Choudhary
4. Kameshwar Choudhary All are sons of Late Belash Choudhary, R/o Village & P.O.-Sangrahe Kalan, P.S. & District-Garhwa.
.......... Petitioners.
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa.
4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Garhwa.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Garhwa.
6. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Garhwa.
7. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Garhwa.
8. The Block Development Officer, Garhwa.
9. The Circle Officer, Garhwa.
10. The Officer-in-Charge, Garhwa Police Station, Garhwa.
11. Mukhiya, Sangrahe Panchayat
12. Panchayat Sachiv, Sangrahe Panchayat Respondent nos.11 & 12 are R/o Sangrahe Kalan, P.S. & District-Garhwa.
.......... Respondents.
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Mithilesh Singh, GA-IV
-----
Order No.05 Date: 09.04.2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondent either to remove the road constructed over the raiyati land of the petitioners or to pay compensation to them as per the prevailing market rate for utilizing the same without lawful acquisition.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
1
2025:JHHC:10965
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have the lawful right and title over the land appertaining to Plot No.987, Khata No.7, measuring an area of 30 decimals and Plot No.986, Khata No.11, measuring an area of 1.65 acres both under Mouza- Sangrahe Kalan, Thana No.265. Despite that, the respondent authorities have constructed a public road utilizing part of the said land i.e. 2 decimals and 3 decimals respectively. Since the said road was constructed without lawfully acquiring the land in question, respondent authorities should either remove the road from the said land or to pay suitable compensation to the petitioners as per law.
4. Mr. Mithilesh Singh, learned G.A.-IV, appearing on behalf of the State-respondents refers to relevant paragraphs of the counter affidavit filed on their behalf, which read as under:
"7. That it is submitted and stated on behalf of the answering respondents that in 2011 a scheme for construction of MITTI MORANG Road in Village Sangrahe Kalan from Pacci Sadak to Koyal River has been proposed to be constructed from NRBP Garhwa vide Memo No. 540/2012 dated 22/06/2012. This road has been travelled to the land of Belash Chaudhari (the father of the petitioners) Pragash Chaudhari, Prabhu Chaudhari and other villagers.
9. That since the construction of the road has been initiated in 2012 without any obstruction with consent of the deceased father of the petitioners namely Belash Chaudhari. Prabhu Chaudhari the petitioner no. 03 also put his signature by giving his consent. It is presumed that the petitioners have waived their entire interest whatsoever available in the subject land over which 2 2025:JHHC:10965 the road has been constructed. One document has been prepared on non-judicial stamp of Rupees 50, by the villagers over which Belash Chaudhari the deceased father of the petitioners has also put his signature along with the petitioner no.03. It was also decided in the said meeting that also the Petitioner No. 02 namely Chandra Kishore Chaudhari was constructed the said road as being agent.
10. That not only this prior to initiation and sanctioned of the Scheme again on 02/01/2013 a meeting was organised on the point of construction of aforesaid Road under the Chairmanship of Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Sangrahe Khurd. In said meeting the father of the petitioners Belash Chaudhari and all other Raiyats effected have voluntarily and without any pressure of instigation given their consent over effected land for construction of the Road. They are also admitted that they will execute and affidavit in the court if and when required."
5. It thus appears from the aforesaid statements made in the counter affidavit that the construction of the road was initiated in the year 2012 prior to which the consent of the petitioners' father namely Late Belash Choudhary along with the villagers of the concerned village was taken on 14.04.2011 as would be evident from the minutes of meeting dated 14.04.2011 annexed as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit recorded in the non-judicial stamp paper. Moreover, the petitioner no.3 also put his signature on the same by giving his consent. It would further appear that the petitioner no.2-Chandra Kishore Choudhary was assigned the construction work of the said road as the contractor.
3
2025:JHHC:10965
6. No rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners controverting the aforesaid statements made in the counter affidavit.
7. Under the said circumstance, the prayer made in the writ petition is not worth consideration. Otherwise also, the construction of the road in question was already completed in the year 2013, whereas the present writ petition was filed in the year 2024 after inordinate delay of about 11 years without giving cogent explanation.
8. In the case of State of Orissa Vs. Laxmi Narayan Das reported in (2023) 15 SCC 273 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
24. In P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N. [P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N., (1975) 1 SCC 152: 1975 SCC (L&S) 22] , it was laid down that a person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his head should approach the court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time, but it should be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for the relief.
25. In NDMC v. Pan Singh [NDMC v. Pan Singh, (2007) 9 SCC 278 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 398] , this Court has opined that though there is no period of limitation provided for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet ordinarily a writ petition should be filed within a reasonable time. In the said case the respondents had filed the writ petition after seventeen years and the court, as stated earlier, took note of the delay 4 2025:JHHC:10965 and laches as relevant factors and set aside the order [Pan Singh v. NDMC, 2005 SCC OnLine Del 1584] passed by the High Court which had exercised the discretionary jurisdiction.
26. In State of Uttarakhand v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari [State of Uttarakhand v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, (2013) 12 SCC 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 32] , this Court, while considering the issue regarding delay and laches observed that even if there is no period prescribed for filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet it should be filed within a reasonable time. Relief to a person, who puts forward a stale claim can certainly be refused relief on account of delay and laches. Anyone who sleeps over his rights is bound to suffer."
9. Thus, it is no more res-integra that though there is no period of limitation prescribed for exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court should not exercise discretionary power if the writ petition is filed after an inordinate delay and such delay is not properly explained. A stale claim can certainly be refused by the writ court on account of delay and laches. Anyone who sleeps over his rights is bound to suffer. The power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and the High Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. When an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to 5 2025:JHHC:10965 scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Delay comes in the way of equity.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Vikas/ 6