Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Abhay V. Khinvasara, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the acquisition of land bearing Survey No.137/2 at village Akurdi, Pune, under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961. The petitioner claimed that his father, Vasantlal Mohanlal Khinvasara, was the original owner of the land, which was bequeathed to the petitioner's mother and then to the petitioner. The acquisition process began in 1963, and the petitioner's father had received notices under Section 32(2) of the MID Act. He challenged these notices in Special Civil Application No. 767 of 1966, which was settled by consent terms on 21 January 1972. Under the consent terms, the father agreed to the acquisition of certain lands, including the subject land, and undertook not to raise any objection. Possession of the land was taken over on 11 February 1972 under panchnamas. The petitioner's father died in 2002, and the petitioner's mother died in 2009. The petitioner filed the writ petition on 31 July 2010, alleging that no acquisition proceedings were completed, no possession was taken, and no compensation was paid. The petitioner claimed that he only came to know about the acquisition when the government's name was entered in the records of right. The respondents, including the State of Maharashtra and MIDC, opposed the petition on grounds of delay, laches, and the binding nature of the consent terms. The Court analyzed the facts and found that the acquisition had been completed in 1972, and the petitioner had filed the petition after 38 years without any explanation for the delay. The Court noted that the petitioner was only 7 years old at the time of acquisition and could not have personal knowledge of the facts, rendering the verification false. The Court held that the consent terms were binding on the petitioner, and the land could not be bequeathed after acquisition. The Court dismissed the petition on the ground of delay and laches, holding that the discretionary remedy under Article 226 cannot be invoked after such inordinate delay.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Delay and Laches - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The Court held that a petition challenging land acquisition filed after 38 years of completion of acquisition and possession, without any explanation for the delay, is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. The equitable and discretionary remedy under Article 226 cannot be invoked after such inordinate delay, especially when parties have changed their position. (Paras 3-4, 34-60) B) Land Acquisition - Consent Terms - Binding Effect - Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961, Section 32 - The petitioner's father had entered into consent terms in 1966 agreeing to the acquisition of the land and undertaking not to raise any objection. The Court held that such consent terms are binding on the petitioner, who claims through his father, and the acquisition cannot be challenged after decades. (Paras 6-8, 34-60) C) Civil Procedure - Verification of Pleadings - False Verification - Order 6 Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The Court observed that the petitioner, who was 7 years old at the time of acquisition, could not have personal knowledge of the facts pleaded, rendering the verification legally false and unacceptable. (Para 2) D) Property Law - Bequest of Acquired Land - Invalidity - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - The Court held that a land which has already been acquired cannot be bequeathed by a Will, and any purported bequest is of no legal effect. (Para 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition challenging land acquisition proceedings that were completed 38 years prior, with the petitioner's father having consented to the acquisition, and without any explanation for the inordinate delay, is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. The Court held that the petitioner failed to explain the inordinate delay of 38 years in filing the petition, and the consent terms entered by his father are binding. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Delay and laches
- Acquiescence
- Consent terms binding on successors
- Verification of pleadings
- Discretionary remedy under Article 226
- Limitation for challenging acquisition
