2003 (10) TMI 666

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of the compensation. They thereafter also filed an appeal in the High Court against the Judgment of the Reference Court. On 2nd February, 1999 the Respondents filed a Writ Petition challenging the acquisition on the ground that the urgency clause could not have been invoked. This Writ Petition has been allowed by the impugned Judgment. It was submitted that the order of the High Court was just and equitable. It was submitted that the Respondents had patiently waited for all these years in order to see whether the land was put to use for the purpose for which it was acquired. It was submitted that merely because the Respondents had given, the State and the acquiring body, ti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hat litigation. Merely because this fact was mentioned by the State it did be afford Respondents an excuse to justify delay and latches on their part. It was next submitted that even though there were delay and latches on the part of the Respondents they were justified in filing the Writ Petition as the fraud was being played by the State and the acquiring body. It was submitted that the land was sought to be transferred to some other body even though the acquisition was on behalf of Appellants. It was submitted that the Respondents filed the Writ Petition as this fraud came to their knowledge. We see no substance in this contention also. In the Writ Petition there is no ground of fraud. These are also facts which came to light as a resu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the respondent would utilize the land. When it found that nothing was being done, the petitioner has approached this Court. The petitioner cannot be accused of any delay so as to disentitle it to the relief. The delay, if any, shows the bonafides of the petitioner. In our view, this reasoning is entirely unsustainable and erroneous. The Respondents did not need to wait 22 years to see that nothing was being done to utilize the land. The High Court was entirely in error in stating that the Respondents could not be accused of any delay and that the delay in fact showed the bonafides of the Respondents. Further, the High Court seems to have overlooked the fact that the Respondents had applied for enhancement of compensation and had file .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X