Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/8176/2011 5/ 5 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8176 of 2011
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI Sd/-
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Sd/-
======================================
1.
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
NO
2.
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
NO
3.
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
NO
4.
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
NO
5.
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
NO
======================================
JETHUSINH
SARDARSINH CHAUHAN - Petitioner
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - THROUGH SECRETARY & 3 - Respondents
======================================
Appearance
:
MR
DAKSHESH MEHTA for Petitioner.
None for
Respondents.
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Date
: 19/07/2011
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)
We
have heard Mr. Dakshesh Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner.
This
petition has been filed for the following reliefs :-
“(A) Your
Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent
authorities to take appropriate action and to verify the record
regarding the awards passed in favour of the father of the petitioner
and to further pass necessary award for Survey Nos.222 and 224 and
pay the amount of award along with interest, to the petitioner.
(B) Pending
admission, hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, Your
Lordships may be pleased to verify the record and submit the
information regarding the awards passed in favour of the father of
the petitioner, before this Hon’ble Court;”
The
land was acquired in the year 1970 for construction of residential
houses for the staff of Dharoi Dam Project. The father of the
petitioner died in the year 2007 and then the petitioner came to
know from his old diary that compensation for acquiring the land for
Survey No.222 and 224 was not paid. The petitioner prays that the
records may be verified and compensation along with interest
be paid.
It
is not disputed that father of the petitioner died in the year 2007
and the land was acquired in the year 1970. The father of the
petitioner never claimed any compensation during his life time for a
period of 27 years.
In
our opinion, at such a belated stage, this petition cannot be
entertained as it has been held by the Apex Court in the case of
State
of Orissa and another v. Mamta Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436
in paragraphs 52 to 54 as under :-
“DELAY/LACHES
:-
52. In
the very first appeal, the respondent filed Writ Petition on
11.11.2005 claiming relief under the Notification dated 6.10.1989
w.e.f. 1.1.1986 without furnishing any explanation for such
inordinate delay and on laches on her part. Section 3 of the
Limitation Act 1963, makes it obligatory on the part of the court
to dismiss the Suit or appeal if made after the prescribed period
even though the limitation is not set up as a defence and there is no
plea to raise the issue of limitation even at appellate stage
because in some of the cases it may go to the root of the matter.
(See : Lachhmi Sewak Sahu v. Ram Rup Sahu & Ors., AIR 1944 Privy
Council 24; and Kamlesh Babu & Ors. v. Lajpat Rai Sharma &
Ors, (2008) 12 SCC 577).
33.
Needless to say that Limitation Act 1963 does not apply in writ
jurisdiction. However, the doctrine of limitation being based on
public policy, the principles enshrined therein are applicable and
writ petitions are dismissed at initial stage on the ground of delay
and laches. In a case like at hand, getting a particular pay scale
may give rise to a recurring cause of action. In such an eventuality,
the petition may be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and
the court may refuse to grant relief for the initial period in case
of an unexplained and inordinate delay. In the instant case, the
respondent claimed the relief from 1.1.1986 by filing a petition on
11.11.2005 but the High Court for some unexplained reason granted the
relief w.e.f. 1.6.1984, though even the Notification dated
6.10.1989 makes it applicable w.e.f. 1.1.1986.
54. This
Court has consistently rejected the contention that a petition should
be considered ignoring the delay and laches in case the petitioner
approaches the Court after coming to know of the relief granted by
the Court in a similar case as the same cannot furnish a proper
explanation for delay and laches. A litigant cannot wake up from
deep slumber and claim impetus from the judgment in cases where some
diligent person had approached the Court within a reasonable time.
(See: M/s Rup Diamonds & Ors., v. Union of India & Ors.,
AIR 1989 SC 674; State of Karnataka & Ors. v. S.M. Kotrayya &
Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 267; and Jagdish Lal & Ors. v. State of
Haryana & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 2366).
Since
the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches, no relief can be
granted to him. This petition is accordingly dismissed on the
ground of delay and laches.
Sd/-
[V. M. SAHAI, J.]
Sd/-
[G. B. SHAH, J.]
Savariya
Top