# Ghansu & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 10 ILRA 117
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-31
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 13935 of 2018
- **Bench:** Rajesh Bindal, C.J. Piyush Agrawal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ghansu-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47684
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Sri Ajay Prakash Paul (State Law Officer),
Sri Nitin Kumar Agarwal (Addl. C.S.C.)

A. Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Writ - Maintainability - Laches - Ground
of
making
representation,
how
far
acceptable - Allegation was made that the
petitioner's land was submerged due to
construction
of
a
water reservoir
-
Representation, claiming compensation
for loss was made - No enquiry was made
to
know
about
the
status
of
their
representation
-
Effect
-
Held,
the
petitioners should have been vigilant
enough and enquire about the status of
their representation so made before the
authorities
concerned
-
High
Court
refused to grant relief relying upon the
stand of the St. that height of the dam has
not been increased and whatever was
there a century before, has been retained.
(Para 2, 7 and 10)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-

## Text

10 All. Ghansu & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
117

22. Respondents are directed to
refund the proportionate basic license fee,
proportionate license fee and the security
deposit as forfeited vide order dated
1.6.2015 to the petitioners.

Respondents are further directed
to refund the amount obtained by them
through auction of the liquor which was
directed to be sold from the licensed
premise of the petitioner in Writ - C
No.9330 of 2016 and that of the petitioner
in Writ - C No.9338 of 2016.

23. The amounts as directed above,
shall be paid to the petitioners within a
period of four months from the date of
them moving an appropriate application
before respondent no.5.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 117
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

Writ-C No. 13935 of 2018

Ghansu & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Hari Om Khare, Sri Akash Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ajay Prakash Paul (State Law Officer),
Sri Nitin Kumar Agarwal (Addl. C.S.C.)

A. Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Writ - Maintainability - Laches - Ground
of
making
representation,
how
far
acceptable - Allegation was made that the
petitioner's land was submerged due to
construction
of
a
water reservoir
-
Representation, claiming compensation
for loss was made - No enquiry was made
to
know
about
the
status
of
their
representation
-
Effect
-
Held,
the
petitioners should have been vigilant
enough and enquire about the status of
their representation so made before the
authorities
concerned
-
High
Court
refused to grant relief relying upon the
stand of the St. that height of the dam has
not been increased and whatever was
there a century before, has been retained.
(Para 2, 7 and 10)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. Writ C No. 10967 of 2022; Smt. Pushpa Devi
Vs St. of U.P. decided on 05.05.2022
2. Writ C No. 4796 of 2022; Ram Avtar Sharma
Vs St. of U.P. & ors. decided on 07.03.2022
3. P. S. Sadasivasway Vs St. of T. N.; (1975) 1
SCC 152
4. New Delhi Municipal Council Vs Pan Singh &
ors.; (2007) 9 SCC 278
5. St. of Uttaranchal & anr. Vs Sri Shiv Charan
Singh Bhandari & ors.; 2013 (6) SLR 629
6. Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply &
Sewerage Board & ors. Vs T. T. Murali Babu;
2014 (4) SCC 108
7. St. of M. P. & ors. etc. etc. Vs Nandlal Jaiswal
& ors. etc.; AIR 1987 SC 251
8. St. of Jammu & Kashmir Vs R. K. Zalpuri &
ors.; 2015 (15) SCC 602
9. U.O.I. & ors. Vs Chaman Rana; 2018 (5) SCC
798
10. Senior Divisional Manager, L.I.C. Vs Shree
Lal Meena; (2019) 4 SCC 479
11. Sheel Kumar Jain Vs New India Assurance
Co. Ltd.; (2011)12 SCC 197
12. Civil Appeal No.1009 of 2020; Bharat Coking
Coal Ltd. & ors. Vs Shyam Kishore Singh
decided on 05.02.2020
13. U.O.I. & ors. Vs N. Murugesan & ors.;
(2022) 2 SCC 25
118 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal, C.J.
&
Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal, J.)

ORDER

1. By means of present petition, the
petitioners, who are 05 in numbers, are
seeking a direction to the respondents
either to clear the land in question or to pay
suitable compensation of their land, which
is submerged due to construction of water
reservoir situated at Gwalior Road, Jhansi
commonly
known
as
''Pahunj
Band
Pariyojna'.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the
petitioners are stated to be the occupants of
the land in question as hereditary tenant
having bhumidhar with transferable rights
after commencement of U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.
The detailed descriptions of the land
relating to the petitioners have been
mentioned in para 4 of the present petition.
It is stated that in the year 1909, a water
reservoir commonly known as ''Pahunj
Band Pariyojna' situated at Gwalior Road,
Jhansi, was constructed with the consent of
villagers, on account of which some land
was permanently submerged and some land
was used for water flow during rainy
season.
The
petitioners
are
claiming
compensation on account of loss of their
crop / submerged land caused by water
reservoir.

3. The learned counsel for the
petitioner urged that the petitioners are
recorded owner of their respective land,
which are affected by conservation of water
more than the prescribed limit due to which
the land in question have been submerged.
As the land in question was never acquired,
the petitioners are claiming compensation
for the loss. For the said purpose, the
petitioners had made objection before the
concerned authority but of no avail. The
petitioners
also
made
several
representations in this respect but no action
was taken. It has been further stated that the
petitioners are deprived from cultivation of
their valuable land as such suitable
compensation may be awarded to them for
their loss. It is further urged that since the
height of the water reservoir has been
raised, the petitioners are facing hardship
and due to which they seek a direction to
the respondent authority to pay adequate
compensation for the loss.

4. Per contra, the learned State Law
Officer submitted that the land falling
under the submerged area of the water
reservoir was willingly given by the
villagers for its construction in the year
1909-10 and it was consented that no
compensation could be claimed on account
of damage of swamping which may cause
after construction of reservoir. It is further
urged that since the date of construction,
the height of the water reservoir is
maintained at 786 feet. The petitioners have
failed to bring any material on record to
show that the height of the water reservoir
was ever enhanced. Counsel further urged
that the present petition has been filed after
huge delay. The petitioners have failed to
explain the reason in approaching to this
Court after such a huge delay. He prays for
dismissal of the present petition on the
ground of latches also.

5. After hearing the arguments of the
learned counsel for the parties, the Court
has perused the records.

6. It is not in dispute that the water
reservoir was constructed way back in the
year 1909-10 with due consent of the
10 All. Ghansu & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
119
villagers. Pursuant to that an agreement
was also executed on 7.7.1910, copy of
which has been filed as Annexure No. 1 to
the counter affidavit of the respondents.
The record shows that in the year 2009, a
proposal was only made for raising the
height of the water reservoir from 786 feet
by 1.27 meters, however, the said proposal
was dropped by the High Level Committee
of the Government in the meeting held on
21.6.2013. In the said meeting it was
decided to construct a retaining wall /non
over flow section. Since the height of the
water reservoir was not raised and is
maintained as 786 feet therefore no loss of
any kind could be suffered by the
petitioners. There is no question for
payment of any compensation to the
petitioners for the land in question.

7. The reservoir was constructed in
the year 1909-10. The issue sought to be
raised by the petitioners for the first time in
the year 2010, after more than a century
especially when the petitioners were no
where in the picture, when the land was
taken. No explanation has been submitted
for the latches caused in filing the petition.
The only bald allegation has been made
that they were approaching the authorities
and filed representations which were not
decided.

8. Recently this Court in Writ C No.
10967 of 2022 titled as Smt. Pushpa Devi
Vs. State of U.P. decided on May 5, 2022,
after considering the various judgements of
the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the
petition filed with the huge delay is
required to be dismissed at the threshold.

9. This Court in Writ C No. 4796 of
2022 titled as Ram Avtar Sharma Vs.
State of U.P. and others decided on March
7, 2022 has dismissed the petition on the
ground of delay and latches. Relevant paras
of the said judgement are extracted below:-

"3. After hearing learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner, we do not find
any case is made out for interference in the
present writ petition, on account of huge
delay and laches. The impugned order was
passed by the Secretary of the Department
concerned on February 10, 2012 and the
writ petition has been filed more than a
decade thereafter. As to how the petition,
filed after huge delay, has to be dealt with
has been considered by the Courts on
number of occasions and the opinion
expressed is that these petitions are
required to be dismissed at the threshold.

4. In P. S. Sadasivasway v. State
of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152,
wherein it has been 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 would 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.

5. In New Delhi Municipal
Council v. Pan Singh and others, (2007)
9 SCC 278, the 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 and
120 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
laches as relevant factors and set aside the
order passed by the High Court which had
exercised the discretionary jurisdiction.

6. In State of Uttaranchal and
another v. Sri Shiv Charan Singh
Bhandari and others 2013 (6) SLR 629,
Hon'ble
the
Supreme
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.

7. In Chennai Metropolitan
Water Supply and Sewerage Board and
others v. T. T. Murali Babu 2014 (4)
SCC 108, Hon'ble the Supreme Court
opined as under:-

"13. First, we shall deal with the
facet of delay. In Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation v. Balwant Regular
Motor Service, Amravati and others, AIR
1969 SC 329, the Court referred to the
principle that has been stated by Sir Barnes
Peacock in Lindsay Petroleum Co. v.
Prosper Armstrong Hurd, Abram Farewall,
and John Kemp, (1874) 5 PC 221, which is
as follows:-

"Now the doctrine of laches in
Courts of Equity is not an arbitrary or a
technical doctrine. Where it would be
practically unjust to give a remedy, either
because the party has, by his conduct, done
that which might fairly be regarded as
equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by his
conduct and neglect he has, though perhaps
not waiving that remedy, yet put the other
party in a situation in which it would not be
reasonable to place him if the remedy were
afterwards to be asserted in either of these
cases, lapse of time and delay are most
material. But in every case, if an argument
against relief, which otherwise would be
just, is founded upon mere delay, that delay
of course not amounting to a bar by any
statute of limitations, the validity of that
defence must be tried upon principles
substantially equitable. Two circumstances,
always important in such cases, are, the
length of the delay and the nature of the
acts done during the interval, which might
affect either party and cause a balance of
justice or injustice in taking the one course
or the other, so far as relates to the
remedy."

15. In State of M. P. and others
etc. etc. vs. Nandlal Jaiswal and others
etc. etc., AIR 1987 SC 251, the Court
observed that it is well settled that 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. It has been
further stated therein that if there is
inordinate delay on the part of the
petitioner in filing a petition and such delay
is not satisfactorily explained, the High
Court may decline to intervene and grant
relief in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
Emphasis was laid on the principle of delay
and laches stating that resort to the
extraordinary remedy under the writ
jurisdiction at a belated stage is likely to
cause confusion and public inconvenience
and bring in injustice.

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
10 All. Ghansu & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
121
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 scrutinize 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.
... A court is not expected to give
indulgence to such indolent persons- who
compete with `Kumbhakarna' or for that
matter 'Rip Van Winkle'. In our considered
opinion, such delay does not deserve any
indulgence and on the said ground alone
the writ court should have thrown the
petition overboard at the very threshold."

8. In State of Jammu &
Kashmir vs. R. K. Zalpuri and others
2015 (15) SCC 602, Hon'ble the Supreme
Court considered the issue regarding delay
and laches in raising the dispute before the
Court. It was opined that the issue sought to
be raised by the petitioners therein was not
required to be addressed on merits on
account of delay and laches. The relevant
paras thereof are extracted below:-

"27. The grievance agitated by
the respondent did not deserve to be
addressed on merits, for doctrine of delay
and laches had already visited his claim
like the chill of death which does not spare
anyone even the one who fosters the idea
and nurtures the attitude that he can sleep
to avoid death and eventually proclaim
"Deo gratias - thanks to God".

28. Another aspect needs to be
stated. A writ court while deciding a writ
petition is required to remain alive to the
nature of the claim and the unexplained
delay on the part of the writ petitioner.
Stale claims are not to be adjudicated
unless non-interference would cause grave
injustice. The present case, need less to
emphasise, did not justify adjudication. It
deserves to be thrown overboard at the very
threshold, for the writ petitioner had
accepted the order of dismissal for half a
decade and cultivated the feeling that he
could freeze time and forever remain in the
realm of constant present."

9.
The
aforesaid
view
was
followed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
Union of India and others v. Chaman
Rana 2018 (5) SCC 798.

10. Subsequently, a Constitution
Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
Senior
Divisional
Manager,
Life
Insurance Corporation v. Shree Lal
Meena (2019) 4 SCC 479, considering the
principle of delay and laches, opined as
under:-

"36. We may also find that the
appellant remained silent for years together
and that this Court, taking a particular view
subsequently, in Sheel Kumar Jain v. New
India
Assurance
Company
Limited,
(2011)12 SCC 197 would not entitle stale
claims to be raised on this behalf, like that
of the appellant. In fact the appellant slept
over the matter for almost a little over two
years even after the pronouncement of the
judgment.

37. Thus, the endeavour of the
appellant, to approach this Court seeking
the relief, as prayed for, is clearly a
misadventure, which is liable to be
rejected, and the appeal is dismissed."
122 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. Recently, in Bharat Coking
Coal Ltd. And othyers v. Shyam Kishore
Singh (Civil Appeal No.1009 of 2020,
decided on 5.2.2020), the issue regarding the
delay and laches, was considered by Hon'ble
the Supreme Court and a petition filed
belatedly, seeking change in the date of birth
in the service record, was dismissed.

12. Relying on T.T. Murali Babu'
case (supra) and R.K. Zalpuri'case (supra),
same view has been expressed by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in Union of India and others
Vs. N. Murugesan and others (2022) 2 SCC
25 observing:

"We have already dealt with the
principles of law that may have a bearing on
this case. ... there was an unexplained and
studied reluctance to raise the issue .... Hence,
on the principle governing delay, laches ...
Respondent No. 1 ought not to have been
granted any relief by invoking Article 226 of
the Constitution of India."

13. In the case in hand, after hearing
learned counsel for the parties and taking the
above authorities into account, in our opinion,
the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. It is,
however, sought to be contended that the order
dated February 10, 2012 was communicated
vide Communication dated December 30,
2021, which is sought to be relied upon to
show that the order was communicated to the
petitioner quite late in the year 2021.
However, a perusal thereof shows that it is not
addressed to him. It is merely an interdepartmental communication from the Joint
Secretary in the State of U.P. to the Greater
NOIDA. In any case, the same cannot be taken
to be a reasonable explanation for condoning
huge delay in filing the present writ petition. In
this case, the direction was issued by this
Court about a decade back. The petitioner
should have been vigilant and enquired about
the status of the application filed by him
before the competent authority. There is
nothing on record to suggest that he ever made
any representation or enquired about the order
passed on his representation. In any case, the
release of land under Section 48 of the Act is
not a matter of right with the landowner. It is a
power conferred on the Government."

10. In the case in hand, it is evident that
after construction of water reservoir in the year
1909-10, the representations were made for the
first time in the year 2010. Thereafter no
efforts were taken by the petitioners. In our
opinion, the petitioners should have been
vigilant enough and enquire about the status of
their representation so made before the
authorities concerned. There is nothing on
record to suggest that the petitioners ever
made any inquiry, whatsoever, in respect of
the representations so made. It is the definite
stand of the State that height of the dam has
not been increased and whatever was there a
century before, has been retained. Thus in our
view, the petitioners are not entitled for any
relief.

11. In view of above, the petition is
devoid of merit. No interference is called for
by this Court. The writ petition is, accordingly,
dismissed.

12. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 122
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-C No. 14321 of 2022

Shakuntala Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents