Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Kiritkumar B. Shah, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider, assess, and grant compensation for land bearing Survey No.53A/1/A/6, Pen Village, Taluka Pen, District Raigad, admeasuring about 15.90 Ares, which was acquired in 1983 for the benefit of the Department of Telecommunication, Government of India (later BSNL). The petitioner claimed that an ad-hoc amount of Rs.5,000/- was paid under protest, but no further compensation was made despite follow-ups. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.2003 of 2019 on 8th January 2019, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation. The representation was rejected on 30th September 2021, leading to the present petition. The respondents argued that the petition was barred by delay and laches, as the acquisition took place in 1983 and the petitioner had accepted the ad-hoc amount without any formal acquisition proceedings. The court held that the petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, as the petitioner failed to explain the inaction for 36 years. The court noted that the petitioner had accepted the ad-hoc amount and did not challenge the acquisition or seek compensation until 2019. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Delay and Laches - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The petitioner sought compensation for land acquired in 1983, but filed the petition in 2022 without explaining the delay of 36 years - Held that the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches (Paras 1-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for land acquired in 1983 after a delay of 36 years, and whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of delay and laches.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Delay and laches
- Writ of mandamus
- Compensation for land acquisition
- Ad-hoc payment under protest
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (01) 256
WRIT PETITION NO.3932 OF 2022
R.D. Dhanuka, M.M. Sathaye
Mr.Rajendra V. Pai, Senior Advocate with Alaikik P. Pai, Mr.Akshay R. Pai, Atharva Sane, Ms.Maanasi R. Gupta and Ms.Prajakta Shringarpure i/b Bina R. Pai for the Petitioner. Mr.A.I. Patel, Additional Government Pleader with Mr.N.K. Rajpurohit, AGP, and Ms.K.N. Solunke, AGP for the State – Respondent. Mrs.Neeta V. Masurkar for the Respondent Nos.4 and 6. Mr.Sandesh D. Patil with Mr.Ajinkya Jaibhave for the Respondent No.5.
State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition seeking compensation for land acquired in 1983.
Remedy Sought
Writ of mandamus directing respondents to consider, assess, and grant compensation for the acquired land, or alternatively to demolish structures and hand over possession, and to grant additional compensation for delayed payment.
Filing Reason
Non-payment of compensation for land acquired in 1983.
Previous Decisions
Writ Petition No.2003 of 2019 was filed on 8th January 2019 and disposed of with a direction to consider representation; representation rejected on 30th September 2021.
Issues
Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for land acquired in 1983 after a delay of 36 years?
Whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of delay and laches?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that land was acquired in 1983, ad-hoc amount of Rs.5,000/- was paid under protest, and no further compensation was paid despite follow-ups.
Respondents argued that the petition is barred by delay and laches as the acquisition took place in 1983 and the petitioner accepted the ad-hoc amount without any formal acquisition proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
A writ petition seeking compensation for land acquisition filed after 36 years is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, especially when the petitioner accepted an ad-hoc amount and did not explain the inaction.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus against the Respondents directing them to duly consider, assess and grant compensation for the land bearing Survey No.53A/1/A/6, Pen Village, Taluka Pen, District Raigad admeasuring about 15.90 Ares acquired for the benefit of the Respondent Nos.5 and 6 on such terms and conditions as this Court deems fit.
It is the case of the Petitioner that, the Petitioner was the owner in respect of the writ property which has been purportedly acquired by the Respondents in the year 1983 for the benefits of the Department of Telecommunication, Government of India.
On 8th January, 2019, the Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.2003 of 2019 in this Court.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.2003 of 2019 on 8th January 2019, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation. The representation was rejected on 30th September 2021. The present petition was filed in 2022.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
