2019 (8) TMI 1908 - SC - Indian Laws

Condonation of inordinate delay of approximately 21 years in preferring the special leave petitions - sufficient cause has been shown to condone the huge delay or not - Entitlement to fair compensation for land acquisition - HELD THAT - It is opined that as such the petitioners have miserably failed to make out a case to condone the huge delay of approximately 21 years. No sufficient cause has been shown to condone the huge delay of approximately 21 years. It is required to be noted that as such in the application itself it is submitted by the petitioners that there is an inordinate delay in approaching this Court. Nothing is on record that after the impugned common judgment and order is passed by the High Court, the petitioners made any grievance/objection with respect to inadequacy of the compensation determined by the High Court. On the contrary, all the petitioners have accepted the compensation as per the judgment and award passed by the reference Court determining the compensation at the rate of Rs. 30/ per square yard. It appears that with respect to some of the land owners even the execution petitions are pending with respect to recovery of the differential amount of compensation, determined by the reference Court and the High Court as by the impugned common judgment and order the High Court has reduced the compensation from Rs. 30 / per sq. yard to Rs. 22/ per sq. yard - it can be said that for a period of approximately 21 years no grievance was made by the petitioners. Therefore, considering the terms of doctrine of acquiescence, the petitioners lose their right to complain. This principle is based on the doctrine of acquiescence implying that in such a case the 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. It is the specific case on behalf of the respondents that the rate of allotment was based on the cost of acquisition and the amount spent on development, laying out the infrastructure. Therefore, if the cost of acquisition is increased now and the State/acquiring body is directed to pay enhanced compensation, in that case, it would be very difficult to recover the difference of amount of compensation from the allottees after decades of allotment. The acquiring body will have to make additional budgetary provision and as observed hereinabove it would be very difficult for the acquiring body to recover the difference of compensation from the allottees after so many years. All these aspects and the cascading effect on the State/acquiring body if they are directed to pay the additional compensation after number of years, have not been considered by this Court in the aforesaid decisions relied upon by the learned Advocate for the petitioners. The condonation of huge delay of 7534, 7542 and 7886 days respectively in filing the special leave petitions is refused - SLP dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Condonation of delay in refiling the special leave petitions.
2. Entitlement to fair compensation for land acquisition.
3. Applicability of previous court decisions to the present case.
4. Doctrine of acquiescence and its impact on the petitioners' rights.
5. Doctrine of laches and delay in relation to the petitioners' claims.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Refiling the Special Leave Petitions:

The Supreme Court condoned the delay of 193, 224, and 142 days respectively in refiling the special leave petitions. However, there was an inordinate delay of approximately 21 years (7534, 7542, and 7886 days) in preferring the special leave petitions before the Court. The respondents vehemently opposed the applications for condonation of delay, arguing that no sufficient cause was shown to explain the delay. The Court noted that the petitioners failed to make out a case to condone the huge delay, emphasizing that no substantial reason was provided for the delay of 21 years.

2. Entitlement to Fair Compensation for Land Acquisition:

The petitioners argued that their lands, acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, were entitled to fair compensation. They contended that the lands in question were better located and should be compensated at par with the lands of village Kasna, which were awarded Rs. 65 per square yard. The respondents countered that the lands of village Kasna were not comparable to the lands of village Gulsitapur and Tilpta, and the compensation awarded by the High Court had attained finality. The petitioners had accepted the compensation without objection for 21 years, thus acquiescing to the High Court's judgment.

3. Applicability of Previous Court Decisions to the Present Case:

The petitioners relied on decisions from Market Committee, Hodal v. Krishan Murari, Dhiraj Singh v. State of Haryana, and K. Subbarayudu v. Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) to support their claim for condonation of delay and enhanced compensation. The Court, however, found that these decisions were not applicable to the present case due to the significant delay of 21 years. The Court noted that in the relied upon cases, there was sufficient cause for delay, and the parity was claimed with respect to lands acquired under the same notification, which was not the situation in the present case.

4. Doctrine of Acquiescence and Its Impact on the Petitioners' Rights:

The Court emphasized the doctrine of acquiescence, noting that the petitioners did not make any grievance regarding the inadequacy of the compensation for approximately 21 years. By accepting the compensation and not objecting to the High Court's judgment, the petitioners effectively acquiesced to the judgment. This principle implies that the petitioners lost their right to complain due to their prolonged inaction and acceptance of the compensation.

5. Doctrine of Laches and Delay in Relation to the Petitioners' Claims:

The Court highlighted the doctrine of laches and delay, stating that a right not exercised for a long time becomes non-existent. Even if there is no prescribed limitation period, the courts have applied the doctrine of laches and delay to non-suit litigants who approach the court belatedly without justifiable explanation. The Court found that the petitioners did not provide a sufficient cause or proper explanation for the 21-year delay, thus denying them relief based on unexplained laches and delay. The Court also considered the adverse impact on the State/acquiring body, noting that directing the State to pay enhanced compensation after such a long period would be unreasonable and financially burdensome.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed the applications for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the special leave petitions on the ground of limitation. The Court found that the petitioners failed to provide a sufficient cause for the 21-year delay and emphasized the doctrines of acquiescence and laches. The Court also noted the potential adverse impact on the State/acquiring body if required to pay enhanced compensation after such a long period. There was no order as to costs.