Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, four individuals who are grandchildren of the original landowner Babasaheb Khadirsaheb Pirjade, filed a writ petition in 2018 challenging an order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, in January/February 2006. The order rejected their revision application under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and upheld the acquisition of their agricultural land for the resettlement of project-affected persons under the Warna irrigation project. The petitioners had earlier challenged the acquisition in Writ Petition No. 1860 of 1988, which was dismissed by the Bombay High Court in 1996. They appealed to the Supreme Court, which by order dated December 1, 1998, remanded the matter to the Divisional Commissioner for fresh consideration, directing status quo regarding possession. The Divisional Commissioner gave the petitioners a personal hearing on March 7, 2005, and thereafter passed the order upholding the acquisition. The petitioners claimed they were unaware of this order until 2018, when they learned of it through an RTI application. They filed the writ petition on June 4, 2018, and amended it after receiving information under the RTI Act on June 18, 2018. The court examined the issue of delay and laches, noting that the petitioners had not taken any steps to ascertain the outcome of the remanded proceedings for over 12 years after the personal hearing. The court found the petitioners' explanation that they were comforted by the status quo order from the Supreme Court to be insufficient, as they did not demonstrate any diligence in pursuing the matter. The court held that the unexplained vacuum of inaction from March 7, 2005, to June 2018 was fatal to the petition. The court also noted that the petitioners had not pressed the prayer for a declaration that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, in light of Supreme Court decisions. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches, without examining the merits of the acquisition challenge.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Delay and Laches - Unexplained Inaction - Writ Petition challenging order of Divisional Commissioner passed in 2006, filed in 2018, dismissed due to unexplained vacuum of inaction from 2005 to 2018 - Petitioners were given personal hearing on March 7, 2005, and matter closed for orders; they did not take any steps to ascertain the outcome until 2018 - Held that such delay is fatal and writ petition is liable to be dismissed on ground of laches (Paras 12-20).
B) Land Acquisition - Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons - Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976 - Validity of Acquisition - Petitioners' challenge to acquisition on grounds of wrong computation of landholding and land not being within benefited zone - Supreme Court had remanded matter to Divisional Commissioner for fresh consideration - Divisional Commissioner upheld acquisition - Petitioners challenged that order after 12 years - Held that delay in challenging the order is not condonable (Paras 2-11, 21-25).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition challenging an order passed in 2006, filed in 2018, is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, given the petitioners' unexplained inaction after being heard in 2005.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. The court held that the unexplained vacuum of inaction from March 7, 2005, to June 2018 is fatal to the petition. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Delay and laches
- Land acquisition
- Resettlement of project displaced persons
- Limitation for challenging administrative orders
- Unexplained inaction
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (10) 258
Writ Petition No.7244 of 2018
G.S. Kulkarni, Somasekhar Sundaresan
Mr. Umesh R. Mankapuare a/w. Mr. Sumit Khaire for Petitioner, Ms. P.N. Diwan, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 5-State
Nizamuddin Husainsaheb Pirjade, Lajam Badesaheb Pirjade, Molaali Badesaheb Pirjade, Shahanawaj Badesaheb Pirjade
The State of Maharashtra, The Divisional Commissioner Pune Division, The Collector Sangli, Special Land Acquisition Officer No.IX Sangli, District Resettlement Officer Sangli
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging an order of the Divisional Commissioner rejecting a revision application under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and upholding the acquisition of agricultural land for resettlement of project-affected persons.
Remedy Sought
Declaration that the acquisition was illegal due to wrong computation of agricultural land, and quashing of the Divisional Commissioner's order.
Filing Reason
The petitioners claimed they were unaware of the 2006 order until 2018, when they learned of it through an RTI application, and sought to challenge it.
Previous Decisions
Writ Petition No. 1860 of 1988 challenging the acquisition was dismissed by the Bombay High Court on October 29, 1996. The Supreme Court, by order dated December 1, 1998, remanded the matter to the Divisional Commissioner for fresh consideration. The Divisional Commissioner passed the impugned order in January/February 2006.
Issues
Whether the writ petition challenging an order passed in 2006, filed in 2018, is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
Whether the petitioners have provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay of over 12 years in approaching the court.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that they were unaware of the 2006 order until 2018, and that they were comforted by the status quo order from the Supreme Court.
Respondents argued that the petition suffers from gross delay and laches, as the petitioners were given a personal hearing in 2005 and took no steps thereafter.
Ratio Decidendi
A writ petition challenging an administrative order must be filed within a reasonable time. Unexplained delay of over 12 years, especially when the petitioner was aware of the proceedings and had been heard, is fatal and warrants dismissal on the ground of laches.
Judgment Excerpts
It is after March 7, 2005 (when the Petitioners were given a personal hearing in the matter) that we find the narrative of the Petitioners problematic, confronted with an unexplained vacuum of inaction for the entire period between March 7, 2005 and June 2018, when this Petition came to be filed.
In the material on record, there is not a whisper of evidence to suggest that the Petitioners’ actions are consistent with actions reasonably expected from a diligent litigant who had taken the trouble of pursuing litigation all the way to the Supreme Court and even succeeded in securing a remand.
The Petitioners assert that they were fully comforted by the fact that they were entitled to a status quo protection from the Supreme Court... However, such comfort cannot substitute for the diligence expected of a litigant who had secured a remand from the Supreme Court.
Procedural History
The original landowner Babasaheb Khadirsaheb Pirjade died in 1975. His sons inherited the land. In 1985, a Section 4 notice was issued for acquisition. An award was passed in 1988. Writ Petition No. 1860 of 1988 was filed challenging the acquisition, which was dismissed in 1996. The Supreme Court remanded the matter to the Divisional Commissioner in 1998. The Divisional Commissioner gave a hearing on March 7, 2005, and passed the order in January/February 2006. The petitioners filed the present writ petition on June 4, 2018, and amended it after receiving RTI information on June 18, 2018.
Acts & Sections
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 4, Section 48(1)
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: Section 24
- Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976:
- Right to Information Act, 2005:
