# Vinay Kumar & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 461
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-01-25
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 32846 of 2021
- **Bench:** Rajesh Bindal, C.J. Piyush Agrawal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vinay-kumar-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48543
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Law
-
Seeking
higher
compensation
-
Right
to
Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation
and
Resettlement Act, 2013 - party can be
denied relief, if he sleeps over the matter -
repeated representations made will not
keep the issues alive - law leans in favour
of those who are alert and vigilant - Even
equality has to be claimed at the right
juncture and not on expiry of reasonable
time - 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 -
dead cause of action cannot rise like a
phoenix. (Para - 4,5,19 )

(B) Delay and laches - doctrine of
acquiescence - doctrine of delay and
laches should not be lightly brushed aside
- delay comes in the way of equity -
Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on
the part of a litigant "procrastination is
the greatest thief of time" - law does not
permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix
- court is not expected to give indulgence
to such indolent persons- who compete
with `Kumbhakarna' or for that matter
'Rip Van Winkle' - right not exercised for a
long time is non-existent even if there is
no limitation period prescribed. (Para -
7,12)

sale deeds - registered by the petitioners - way
back in the year 2013 - on different dates -
after receiving the amount of consideration -
No issue raised till such time representation
dated December 31, 2020 was filed - seeking
higher compensation referring to the provisions
of the Act and also the Government Order dated
March 19, 2015 - order passed Court in Writ-C
No. 19518 of 2017 - direction was issued to the
Committee constituted in terms of Clause 3(1)
of the Government Order dated March 19, 2015
- for reassessment of the compensation -
contention - land of petitioners taken for
construction of road on Indo-Nepal Border -
should not be discriminated for payment of
compensation.(Para -2,3 )

HELD:- Writ petition filed in Court about eight
years after the sale deeds were registered. Any
subsequent event will not re-open the issue,
which already stood settled. Petition deserves to
be dismissed on this ground alone. (Para - 3)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

5 All. Vinay Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
461
that too if the conditions were satisfied to
come to a conclusion that the senior
citizens are being prohibited from enjoying
the property and are being deprived of the
same at the hands of the children or
relatives which, I fear, is not existing in the
present case.

32. Conclusions :

On interpretation and analysis of
the Act, my conclusion is that under
Chapter II, no power is vested in the
Tribunal to direct eviction simplicitor from
the property at the instance of senior
citizens. However, the Tribunal is fully
empowered to direct the children/relatives
(as the case may be) to provide for a
residence on an application being filed
under Chapter II by a senior citizen.

The
District
Magistrate
is
empowered under Chapter V to pass
orders and take such steps as may arise
for ensuring that the senior citizen may
enjoy the property, such steps may
include right to order eviction only as a
last recourse and in relation to a specific
part of the property which are in joint
possession of senior citizens as well as
children/relatives.

33. Coming to the relief that can be
moulded/granted in the present case, the
allegation of the senior citizens was that
the daughter in law, the petitioner no.2
had slapped the respondent no. 6 and on
several occasions had issued threats and
thus, there was apprehension and fear
lurking in the minds of the respondent
no.6 and her husband, the appropriate
relief that can be granted to the
respondents in the present case, in
exercise of the power under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, is to direct
the District Magistrate to ensure the
safety and well being of the respondent
no.6 and her husband and if required to
use such measures as may be deemed
appropriate by the District Magistrate on
a request being made by the respondent
no.6.

I also deem it appropriate to
injunct the petitioners herein not to go to
the ground floor portion of the house and
not to do any acts to cause any
inconvenience to the respondent no.6 and
her husband. Any violation of this
directions shall be dealt with by the
concerned police station, on respondent
no.6 or her husband approaching them.

34. I have not gone into the second
question raised by the counsel for the
petitioners that the order passed is in
violation of the principles of natural
justice as I have already held that the
Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to
direct the eviction under the Scheme of
the Act.

35. In view of the directions, as
given above, both the writ petitions stand
disposed off.
----------
(2022)05ILR A461
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.01.2022

BEFORE

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

Writ C No. 32846 of 2021

Vinay Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
462 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar (Senior Advocate),
Sri Vaibhav Goswami, Sri Ram Dayal Tiwari
(Senior Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.P. Paul

(A)
Civil
Law
-
Seeking
higher
compensation
-
Right
to
Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation
and
Resettlement Act, 2013 - party can be
denied relief, if he sleeps over the matter -
repeated representations made will not
keep the issues alive - law leans in favour
of those who are alert and vigilant - Even
equality has to be claimed at the right
juncture and not on expiry of reasonable
time - 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 -
dead cause of action cannot rise like a
phoenix. (Para - 4,5,19 )

(B) Delay and laches - doctrine of
acquiescence - doctrine of delay and
laches should not be lightly brushed aside
- delay comes in the way of equity -
Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on
the part of a litigant "procrastination is
the greatest thief of time" - law does not
permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix
- court is not expected to give indulgence
to such indolent persons- who compete
with `Kumbhakarna' or for that matter
'Rip Van Winkle' - right not exercised for a
long time is non-existent even if there is
no limitation period prescribed. (Para -
7,12)

sale deeds - registered by the petitioners - way
back in the year 2013 - on different dates -
after receiving the amount of consideration -
No issue raised till such time representation
dated December 31, 2020 was filed - seeking
higher compensation referring to the provisions
of the Act and also the Government Order dated
March 19, 2015 - order passed Court in Writ-C
No. 19518 of 2017 - direction was issued to the
Committee constituted in terms of Clause 3(1)
of the Government Order dated March 19, 2015
- for reassessment of the compensation -
contention - land of petitioners taken for
construction of road on Indo-Nepal Border -
should not be discriminated for payment of
compensation.(Para -2,3 )

HELD:- Writ petition filed in Court about eight
years after the sale deeds were registered. Any
subsequent event will not re-open the issue,
which already stood settled. Petition deserves to
be dismissed on this ground alone. (Para - 3)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Basudeo & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ-C
No. 19518 of 2017

2. St. of Uttaranchal & anr. Vs Sri Shiv
Charan Singh Bhandari & ors., (2013)12 SCC
179

3. U.O.I. & ors. Vs M. K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC
59

4. Karnataka Power Corp. Ltd. through its
C.M.D. Vs K. Thangappan & anr., (2006) 4 SCC
322

5. St. of Orissa Vs Pyarimohan Samantaray,
(1977) 3 SCC 396

6. St. of Orissa Vs Arun Kumar Patnaik, (1976) 3
SCC 579

7. B.S.N.L. Vs Ghanshyam Dass (2) & ors.,
(2011) 4 SCC 374

8. Jagdish Lal Vs St. of Haryana, (1977) 6 SCC
538

9. St. of T. N. Vs Seshachalam, (2007) 10 SCC
137

10. Ghulam Rasool Lone Vs St. of J & K & anr.,
(2009) 15 SCC 321

11. NDMC Vs Pan Singh & ors., (2007) 9 SCC
278

12. P. S. Sadasivasway Vs St. of T.N., (1975) 1
SCC 152
5 All. Vinay Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
463
13. U.O.I. & ors. Vs Chaman Rana, (2018)5 SCC
798

14. U.O.I. & ors. Vs C. Girija & ors. , 2019(3)
SCALE 527

15. Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply &
Sewerage Board & ors. Vs T. T. Murali Babu ,
(2014) 4 SCC 108

16. St. of Mah. Vs Digambar , (1995) 4 SCC 683

17. St. of M.P. & ors. etc. Vs Nandlal Jaiswal &
ors. etc., AIR 1987 SC 251

18. Mah. St. R.T.C. Vs Balwant Regular Motor
Service, Amravati & ors., AIR 1969 SC 329

19. Lindsay Petroleum Co. Vs Prosper Armstrong
Hurd, Abram Farewall, & John Kemp, (1874) 5
PC 221

20. St. of Mah. Vs Digambar, (1995) 4 SCC 683

21. St. of M.P. & ors. etc. Vs Nandlal Jaiswal &
ors. etc. , AIR 1987 SC 251

22. Bal Krishan Vs St. of Punj. & ors., 2013(2)
Recent Service Judgments 18, (P&H)

23. U.O.I.& ors. Vs M.K. Sarkar, (2010)2 SCC 59

24. Vijay Kumar Kaul & ors. Vs U.O.I. & ors.,
(2012)7 SCC 610

25. Prabhakar Vs Joint Director Sericulture
Department & anr., (2015)15 SCC 1

26. St. of J & K Vs R.K. Zalpuri & ors., (2015)15
SCC 602

27. U.O.I. & ors. Vs Chaman Rana, (2018)5 SCC
798

28. Senior Divisional Manager, L.I.C. Vs Shree
Lal Meena, (2019)4 SCC 479

29. B.C.C.L. & ors. Vs Shyam Kishore Singh,
(2020)2 Supreme Today 189

30. Kapilaben Ambalal Patel & ors. Vs St. of Guj.
& anr., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 439
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal, C.J.
&
Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal, J.)

1. The present writ petition has been
filed seeking direction to the respondents to
pay compensation to the petitioners in
terms of the provisions of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation
and
Resettlement
Act,
2013
(hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act'). Further, direction
has been sought for a decision on the
representation dated December 31, 2020
filed by the petitioners seeking the
aforesaid claim. Reference has been made
to two sale deeds (Annexures-2 and 3) in
which the landowners therein were granted
compensation four times to the circle rate.

2. The learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioners submitted that
in view of the Government Order dated
March 19, 2015, the petitioners are entitled
to receive compensation on the principles
as laid down in the Act and the same have
even been followed by the State in the
cases of other landowners whose sale deeds
were registered on July 7, 2017 (Annexure3) and December 2, 2020 (Annexure-2). He
did not dispute the fact that the sale deeds
in the case of the petitioners were
registered way back in the year 2013 on
different dates, much prior to the issuance
of the Government Order dated March 19,
2015. He also referred to an order passed
by this Court in Writ-C No. 19518 of
2017, titled as Basudeo and others vs.
State of U.P. and others in which a
direction was issued to the Committee
constituted in terms of Clause 3(1) of the
Government Order dated March 19, 2015
for reassessment of the compensation. The
argument is that the land of the petitioners
having been taken for construction of road
464 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on Indo-Nepal Border, they should not be
discriminated
for
payment
of
compensation.

3. After hearing learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioners, we do not find
any merit in the present petition. The same
deserves to be dismissed firstly on the
ground of delay and laches. The sale deeds
were got registered by the petitioners way
back in the year 2013 on different dates
after receiving the amount of consideration
mentioned therein. No issue was raised by
them till such time representation dated
December 31, 2020 was filed seeking
higher compensation referring to the
provisions of the Act and also the
Government Order dated March 19, 2015.
The writ petition was filed in this Court
about eight years after the sale deeds were
registered. Any subsequent event will not
re-open the issue, which already stood
settled. The writ petition deserves to be
dismissed on this ground alone.

4. Different facets of issue regarding
delay and laches in filing the petition had
been subject matter of consideration before
Hon'ble the Supreme Court on number of
occasions, wherein it has been consistently
opined that the party can be denied relief, if
he sleeps over the matter.

5. In State of Uttaranchal and
another v. Sri Shiv Charan Singh
Bhandari and others, (2013)12 SCC 179,
Hon'ble
the
Supreme
Court,
while
considering the issue regarding delay and
laches and referring to earlier judgments on
the
issue,
opined
that
repeated
representations made will not keep the
issues alive. A stale or a dead issue/dispute
cannot be got revived even if such a
representation has either been decided by
the authority or got decided by getting a
direction from the court as the issue
regarding delay and laches is to be decided
with reference to original cause of action
and not with reference to any such order
passed. Delay and laches on the part of a
government servant may even deprive him
of the benefit which had been given to
others. Article 14 of the Constitution of
India, in a situation of that nature, will not
be attracted as it is well known that law
leans in favour of those who are alert and
vigilant. Even equality has to be claimed at
the right juncture and not on expiry of
reasonable time. 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.
Such an order promoting a junior should
normally be challenged within a period of
six months or at the most in a year of such
promotion. Though it is not a strict rule, the
courts can always interfere even subsequent
thereto, but relief to a person, who allows
things to happen and then approach the
court and puts forward a stale claim and try
to unsettle settled matters, can certainly be
refused relief on account of delay and
laches. Anyone who sleeps over his rights
is bound to suffer. An employee who sleeps
like Rip Van Winkle and got up from
slumber at his own leisure, deserves to be
denied the relief on account of delay and
laches. Relevant paragraphs from the
aforesaid judgment are extracted below:-

"16. We have no trace of doubt
that the respondents could have challenged
the ad hoc promotion conferred on the
junior employee at the relevant time. They
chose not to do so for six years and the
junior employee held the promotional post
for six years till regular promotion took
place. The submission of the learned
counsel for the respondents is that they had
given representations at the relevant time
5 All. Vinay Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
465
but the same fell in deaf ears. It is
interesting to note that when the regular
selection took place, they accepted the
position solely because the seniority was
maintained and, thereafter, they knocked at
the doors of the tribunal only in 2003. It is
clear as noon day that the cause of action
had arisen for assailing the order when the
junior employee was promoted on ad hoc
basis on 15.11.1983. In C. Jacob v. Director
of Geology and Mining and another, (2008)
10 SCC 115, a two-Judge Bench was
dealing with the concept of representations
and the directions issued by the court or
tribunal to consider the representations and
the
challenge
to
the
said
rejection
thereafter. In that context, the court has
expressed thus:-

"10. Every representation to the
Government for relief, may not be replied
on merits. Representations relating to
matters which have become stale or barred
by limitation, can be rejected on that
ground alone, without examining the merits
of the claim. In regard to representations
unrelated to the Department, the reply may
be only to inform that the matter did not
concern the Department or to inform the
appropriate Department. Representations
with incomplete particulars may be replied
by seeking relevant particulars. The replies
to such representations, cannot furnish a
fresh cause of action or revive a stale or
dead claim."

18. In Union of India and others
v. M. K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59, this
Court, after referring to C. Jacob (supra)
has ruled that:

15. When a belated representation
in
regard
to
a
"stale"
or
"dead"
issue/dispute is considered and decided, in
compliance with a direction by the
court/tribunal to do so, the date of such
decision cannot be considered as furnishing
a fresh cause of action for reviving the
"dead" issue or time- barred dispute. The
issue of limitation or delay and laches
should be considered with reference to the
original cause of action and not with
reference to the date on which an order is
passed in compliance with a Court's
direction. Neither a court's direction to
consider a representation issued without
examining the merits, nor a decision given
in compliance with such direction, will
extend the limitation, or erase the delay and
laches.

19. From the aforesaid authorities
it is clear as crystal that even if the court or
tribunal
directs
for
consideration
of
representations relating to a stale claim or
dead grievance it does not give rise to a
fresh cause of action. The dead cause of
action cannot rise like a phoenix. Similarly,
a mere submission of representation to the
competent authority does not arrest time.

20. In Karnataka Power Corpn.
Ltd. through its Chairman & Managing
Director v. K. Thangappan and another,
(2006) 4 SCC 322, the Court took note of
the factual position and laid down that
when
nearly
for
two
decades
the
respondent-workmen therein had remained
silent mere making of representations could
not justify a belated approach.

21.
In
State
of
Orissa
v.
Pyarimohan Samantaray, (1977) 3 SCC
396, it has been opined that making of
repeated
representations
is
not
a
satisfactory explanation of delay. The said
principle was reiterated in State of Orissa v.
Arun Kumar Patnaik, (1976) 3 SCC 579.

22. In Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Limited v. Ghanshyam Dass (2) and others,
(2011) 4 SCC 374, a three-Judge Bench of
this Court reiterated the principle stated in
Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana, (1977) 6
SCC 538 and proceeded to observe that as
the respondents therein preferred to sleep
over their rights and approached the
466 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
tribunal in 1997, they would not get the
benefit of the order dated 7.7.1992.

23.
In State
of T.
N.
v.
Seshachalam, (2007) 10 SCC 137, this
Court, testing the equality clause on the
bedrock of delay and laches pertaining to
grant of service benefit, has ruled thus:-

"16. ... filing of representations
alone would not save the period of limitation.
Delay or laches is a relevant factor for a court
of law to determine the question as to whether
the claim made by an applicant deserves
consideration. Delay and/or laches on the part
of a government servant may deprive him of
the benefit which had been given to others.
Article 14 of the Constitution of India would
not, in a situation of that nature, be attracted as
it is well known that law leans in favour of
those who are alert and vigilant."

24. There can be no cavil over the
fact that the claim of promotion is based on the
concept of equality and equitability, but the
said relief has to be claimed within a
reasonable time. The said principle has been
stated in Ghulam Rasool Lone v. State of
Jammu and Kashmir and another, (2009) 15
SCC 321.

25. In NDMC 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 laches as relevant
factors and set aside the order passed by the
High Court which had
exercised
the
discretionary jurisdiction.

26. Presently, sitting in a time
machine, we may refer to a two Judge Bench
decision in P. S. Sadasivasway v. State of
Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152, wherein it has
been laid down that:

"2. ... 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
and who stand by and allow things to
happen and then approach the court to put
forward stale claims and try to unsettle
settled matters."

27. We are absolutely conscious
that in the case at hand the seniority has not
been disturbed in the promotional cadre
and no promotions may be unsettled. There
may not be unsettlement of the settled
position
but,
a
pregnant
one,
the
respondents chose to sleep like Rip Van
Winkle and got up from their slumber at
their own leisure, for some reason which is
fathomable to them only. But such
fathoming of reasons by oneself is not
countenanced in law. Anyone who sleeps
over his right is bound to suffer. As we
perceive neither the tribunal nor the High
Court has appreciated these aspects in
proper perspective and proceeded on the
base that a junior was promoted and,
therefore, the seniors cannot be denied the
promotion.

28. Remaining oblivious to the
factum of delay and laches and granting
relief is contrary to all settled principles
and even would not remotely attract the
concept of discretion. We may hasten to
add that the same may not be applicable in
all circumstances where certain categories
5 All. Vinay Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
467
of fundamental rights are infringed. But, a
stale claim of getting promotional benefits
definitely should not have been entertained
by the tribunal and accepted by the High
Court.

29.
True
it
is,
notional
promotional benefits have been granted but
the same is likely to affect the State
exchequer regard being had to the fixation
of pay and the pension. These aspects have
not been taken into consideration. What is
urged before us by the learned counsel for
the respondents is that they should have
been equally treated with Madhav Singh
Tadagi. But equality has to be claimed at
the right juncture and not after expiry of
two decades. Not for nothing, it has been
said that everything may stop but not the
time, for all are in a way slaves of time.
There may not be any provision providing
for limitation but a grievance relating to
promotion cannot be given a new lease of
life at any point of time."

6. The aforesaid view was followed
by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Union of
India and others v. Chaman Rana,
(2018)5 SCC 798 and Union of India and
others v. C. Girija and others 2019(3)
SCALE 527.

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."

14. In State of Mahrashtra v.
Digambar, (1995) 4 SCC 683, while
dealing with exercise of power of the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution,
the Court observed that power of the High
Court to be exercised under Article 226 of
the Constitution, if is discretionary, its
exercise must be judicious and reasonable,
admits of no controversy. It is for that
reason, a person's entitlement for relief
from a High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution, be it against the State or
anybody else, even if is founded on the
allegation of infringement of his legal right,
has
to
necessarily
depend
upon
unblameworthy conduct of the person
468 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
seeking relief, and the court refuses to grant
the discretionary relief to such person in
exercise
of
such
power,
when
he
approaches it with unclean hands or
blameworthy conduct.

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
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.
In the case at hand, though there has been
four years' delay in approaching the court,
yet the writ court chose not to address the
same. It is the duty of the court to
scrutinize whether such enormous delay is
to be ignored without any justification.
That apart, in the present case, such belated
approach gains more significance as the
respondent employee being absolutely
careless to his duty and nurturing a
lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility
had remained unauthorisedly absent on the
pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat
at the cost of repetition that remaining
innocuously oblivious to such delay does
not foster the cause of justice. On the
contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is
likely to affect others. Such delay may have
impact on others' ripened rights and may
unnecessarily drag others into litigation
which in acceptable realm of probability,
may have been treated to have attained
finality. 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 Bal Krishan v. State of Punjab
and others, 2013(2) Recent Service
Judgments
18,
(P&H)
wherein
the
petitioner, after rendering about 34 years of
5 All. Vinay Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
469
service, sought refixation of his pay from
the date he joined service by filing a
petition more than three years after his
retirement, the High Court of Punjab &
Haryana dismissed the writ petition on
account of delay and laches only.

9. The issue regarding decision of a
claim on a direction by the Court on the
representation filed by a writ petitioner was
also considered in Union of India and
others v. M.K. Sarkar, (2010)2 SCC 59
wherein it was held that the issue of
limitation or delay and laches is to be
considered with reference to original cause
of action and not with reference to an order
passed in compliance to Court's direction.
The
Court's
direction
to
consider
representation or a decision given in
compliance thereof, will not extend the
limitation or erase the delay and laches.

10. In Vijay Kumar Kaul and others
v. Union of India and others, (2012)7
SCC 610, Hon'ble the Supreme Court
declined relief to the petitioners who were
fence sitters as they had approached the
Court after the issues raised by other
employees were decided. Relief was
declined on account of delay and laches.

11. Facts of the case in hand are also
similar as writ petition was filed referring
to other cases.

12. The issue was further examined in
Prabhakar v. Joint Director Sericulture
Department and another, (2015)15 SCC
1. It was a case under the Industrial
Disputes Act. In the aforesaid case the
matter in dispute was regarding delay in
raising the industrial dispute. The opinion
expressed by the Court was that right not
exercised for a long time is non-existent
even if there is no limitation period
prescribed. The litigant was non-suited on
the doctrine of delay and laches as well as
doctrine of acquiescence. Paragraph 38 of
the judgment is extracted below:-

"38. Likewise, if a party having a
right stands by and sees another acting in a
manner inconsistent with that right and
makes no objection while the act is in
progress he cannot afterwards complain.
This principle is based on the doctrine of
acquiescence implying that in such a case
party who did not make any objection
acquiesced into the alleged wrongful act of
the other party and, therefore, has no right
to complain against that alleged wrong."

13. The Halsbury's Laws of England
explains delay, latches and acquiescence as
under:

"In determining whether there has
been such delay as to amount to laches, the
chief points to be considered are:

(i) acquiescence on the claimant's
part; and

(ii) any change of position that
has occurred on the defendant's part.

Acquiescence in this sense does
not mean standing by while the violation
of a right is in progress, but assent after
the violation has been completed and the
claimant has become aware of it. It is
unjust to give the claimant a remedy
where, by his conduct, he has done that
which might fairly be regarded as
equivalent to a waiver of it; or where by
his conduct and neglect, though not
waiving the remedy, he has put the other
party in a position in which it would not
be reasonable to place him if the remedy
were afterwards to be asserted. In such
cases lapse of time and delay are most
material. Upon these considerations rests
the doctrine of laches."
470 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

14. In State of Jammu & Kashmir v.
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."

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

16. 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."

17. In Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and
others v. Shyam Kishore Singh, (2020)2
Supreme Today 189, 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.

18. Recently, Hon'ble the Supreme
Court in Kapilaben Ambalal Patel and
others v. State of Gujarat and another,
2020 SCC OnLine SC 439, while agreeing
with the conclusion recorded by the
Division Bench of the High Court that the
writ petition filed in the year 2001
questioning the Possession Panchanama
dated March 20, 1986, suffered from
laches, held as under:-

"23. ... However, it is not
necessary for us to dilate on these aspects
having agreed with the conclusion recorded
by the Division Bench of the High Court
5 All. Ram Bharose Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
471
that the writ petition filed in the year 2001
by the appellants with limited relief of
questioning the Possession Panchanama
dated 20.3.1986, suffered from laches. The
Division Bench of the High Court noted
that the learned single Judge completely
glossed over this crucial aspect of the
matter, and we find no reason to depart
from that conclusion.

24. In view of the above, it is not
necessary for us to dilate on other
contentions raised by the appellants or by
the respondent-State on merits.

25. Having said thus, it must
follow that the present appeal is devoid of
merits and the impugned decision of the
Division Bench of the High Court ought to
be upheld on the threshold ground of writ
petition being barred by laches."

19. So far as the sale deeds
(Annexures-2 and 3), to which reference
has been made by learned Senior Counsel,
are concerned, the same were registered
after issuance of Government Order dated
March 19, 2015. Further in Basudeo's case
(supra), the sale deed was registered in the
year 2015, after the Government Order
dated March 19, 2015 came into force. In
the case in hand, the sale deeds were
registered in the year 2013 on different
dates, much prior to the Government Order
dated March 19, 2015.

20. For the reasons mentioned above,
we do not find any case is made out for
interference in the present case. The same
is accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2022)05ILR A471
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.03.2022

BEFORE

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

Writ C No. 33025 of 2021

Ram Bharose ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Jai Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Nipun Singh, Ms. Meenakshi
Singh, Sri Sunil Kumar Misra

(A) Civil Law - Payment of compensation -
Right
to
Fair
Compensation
and
Transparency
in
Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
- Section 64 - any land owner aggrieved
by
the
assessment
of
amount
of
compensation on account of acquisition of
land - remedy to file representation
before the Collector within six weeks from
the date of award . (Para -7 )

Appropriate compensation not paid to petitioner
(poor land owner) - acquisition of his land -
notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of 1894 Act
-
award
not
announced
immediately
-
announced after a period of 36 years - by
Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition)
-
grievance
raised
-
filing
appeal
to
Commissioner within six weeks from the date of
award - sent through registered-post - rejected
as not maintainable - could not get any relief, as
wrong forum was invoked - objection not filed
under Section 64 of 2013 Act . (Para - 6,7)

HELD:- Be that as it may, it is a case of a poor
land owner, whose land was acquired and
immediately thereafter he raised the issue
regarding amount of compensation though filing
an appeal to the Commissioner, same should be
considered as objection filed in terms of Section
64 of the 2013 Act, so that petitioner is not
deprived of assessment of fair compensation on
account of acquisition of his land. (Para - 8)

Petition allowed. (E-7)