Arjun Kumar Karmali vs Chairman Cum Managing Director And Ors

This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the petitioner has sought for a direction upon the respondents to provide appointment in connection with the acquisition of land pertaining to total area of 2.00 acres of Khata No.22, Plot No.0.77, Khata No.25 Plot No.838, Khata No.40 Plot No.542 of Mouza Village-Charhi under PS-Charhi, District-Hazaribagh.

Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents wherein inter alia stand has been taken that the land has been acquired sometime in the year 1978 and the claim for getting appointment has been filed for the first time in the year 2014 i.e., after lapse of three and a half decade, and that too without showing any explanation to that effect, therefore, the writ petition is hopelessly barred by the principle of delay and latches, hence, the same may not be entertained.

After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going across the pleadings made in the writ petition, it transpires therefrom that the petitioner has invoked the provision of Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of direction upon the respondents to provide appointment in lieu of the acquisition of land for the purpose of residential quarters of the Central Coalfields Limited which has been acquired under the provision of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

It further appears from the pleadings that the notification for acquisition of land is required to be issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which was issued on 09.05.1978 as would appear from Annexure-1 and thereafter the petitioner has sat ideal till filing of his first representation, i.e., on 08.02.2014 as would appear from the statement made by the petitioner at paragraph-8, and when according to the petitioner no action has been taken, this writ petition has been filed.

The question herein is that as to whether the writ petition can be entertained after lapse of 36 years.

It is not in dispute that in entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, limitation act is not applicable but it is not that at any time, if any litigant wishes to come to the Court, the Writ Court will entertain the writ petition and issue writ.

It is further settled position of law that the litigant is supposed to approach before the Court of Law within a reasonable period and therefore, the principle of delay and latches is required to be assessed by the writ Court before issuing any writ in any nature as provided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, reference may be made to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P. S. Sadasivaswamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1975) 1 SCC 152, para-2, which reads hereunder as :

"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 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......"

In the case of Shiv Das vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in (2007) 9 SCC 274, para-6, which reads hereunder as :

"6. Normally, in the case of belated approach writ petition has to be dismissed. Delay or laches is one of the factors to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. Even where fundamental right is involved the matter is still within the discretion of the Court as pointed out in Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. Of course, the discretion has to be exercised judicially and reasonably."

In the case of New Delhi Municipal Council vs. Pan Singh and Ors., reported in (2007) 9 SCC 278, para-17, which reads hereunder as :

"17. Although, there is no period of limitation provided for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ordinarily, writ petition should be filed within a reasonable time."

It is further settled that the writ Court has not been made for loath litigant.

This Court after going across the factual aspect wherefrom it appears that it is admitted case of the petitioner that the land has been acquired sometime in the year 1978 i.e., after issuance of notice on 09.05.1978 and for the first time the petitioner has filed representation on 08.02.2014 for seeking his claim for providing appointment on the ground of displacement on account of the acquisition of land, therefore, for the first time the grievance has been raised by the petitioner after lapse of 36 years and not only that, after the said representation also, the petitioner has waited further for a period of four years in filing this writ petition, so altogether, the writ petition has been filed after lapse of 40 years.

In view thereof, this Court is of the view that the writ petition is hopelessly barred by the principle of delay and latches, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable, accordingly, stands dismissed.