9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1908X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned 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, lay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tive petitioners has vehemently submitted that the lands of the respective petitioners have been compulsorily acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, and therefore, they are entitled to the fair compensation for the lands acquired. It is submitted that the dispute is with respect to the lands acquired of village Gulsitapur and Tilpta which are only 4 kms. away from village Kasna. It is submitted that the location wise the lands of village Gulsitapur and Tilpta were better located and were abutting the national highway, i.e, Noida Dadri Road. It is submitted that village Kasna is 4 kms. behind village Gulsitapur. It is submitted that for the lands acquired of village Kasna, Section 4 notification was issued on 1.3.1989 and the compensation was awarded @ Rs. 65/ per square yard, which has been confirmed by this Court vide order dated 05.12.2016. It is submitted that therefore the respective petitioners are entitled to the fair compensation for the lands acquired of village Gulsitapur and Tilpta at par with the land owners of village Kasna, i.e., at Rs. 65/ per square yard. It is submitted that therefore the agriculturists/farmers are entitled to the fair compensati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect to the lands acquired of village Gulsitapur and Tilpta. 5.4 It is further submitted that so far as the impugned common judgment and order dated 2.4.1996 is concerned, as such, the same has attained finality. It is submitted that not only the petitioners accepted the compensation but after the said judgment was delivered by the High Court no special leave petition has been filed by the present petitioners all these years. It is submitted that therefore they have acquiesced with the impugned common judgment and order of the High Court. 5.5 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that any attempt by the present petitioners to reopen the judgment shall lead to a cascading effect where every one whose land has been acquired by the said notification with respect to the land acquired at village Gulsitapur and Tilpta would start demanding enhanced compensation @ Rs. 65/ per square yard. It is submitted that similarly the other land owners whose land has been acquired though at different villages between the years 1985 1989, too start demanding the same rate of compensation. 5.6 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on beh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t too the land in the said village was acquired after a period of four years and location wise etc. the lands are different. It is submitted that therefore on facts the same shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 5.9 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the present applications for condonation of delay and consequently dismiss the special leave petitions as barred by limitation. 6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties at length. 6.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that as such there is an inordinate delay of approximately 21 years in preferring the special leave petitions before this Court challenging the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court which has been passed in the year 1996. It is required to be noted that the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act with respect to the land situated in village Gulsitapur and Tilpta was issued in the year 1985; possession was taken over in the month of January, 1987; the Land Acquisition Officer declared the award in the year 1988 awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 8 10 per square yard. At the instance of the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to get the enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs. 65/ per square yard, but fairly enough in order to balance the equity, this Court may not grant interest from the date of the judgment of the High Court i.e., 2.4.1996 till the filing of the special leave petitions before this Court. Except the explanation in paragraph 3, reproduced hereinabove, there is no other explanation whatsoever explaining the huge delay of approximately 21 years. Neither any poverty is pleaded nor any financial difficulty is pleaded. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ke out a case for condonation of delay, the applicant has to make out a sufficient cause/reason which prevented him in initiating the proceedings within the period of limitation. Otherwise, he will be accused of gross negligence. If the aggrieved party does not initiate the proceedings within the period of limitation without any sufficient cause, he can be denied the relief on the ground of unexplained laches and delay and on the presumption that such person has waived his right or acquiesced with the order. These principles are based on the principles relatable to sound public policy that if a person does not exercise his right for a long time then such right is non existent. 9. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of Market Committee, Hodal (supra); Dhiraj Singh (supra); and K. Subbarayudu (supra), relied upon by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners is concerned, having gone through the said decisions, we are of the opinion that none of the said decisions shall be applicable to the facts of the case on hand and/or the said decisions shall be of any assistance to the petitioners. First of all, in the relied upon cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
