Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38161 of 2018 Petitioner :- Brahm Sahay Pathak Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shri Kant Shukla,Suresh Chandra Varma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
We have heard Sri S.C. Varma for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 4; and have perused the record.
The petitioner's land was acquired under notification dated 28.06.1979 issued under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act) followed by a declaration, under Section 6 of the Act, dated 26.05.1979. It is not in dispute that an award was also passed in respect of the land acquired and compensation was paid.
The dispute is as regards employment that was to be offered to the land owners as also in respect of additional land utilized though not acquired for which, according to the petitioner, no compensation was paid.
A perusal of the record would reveal that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.18978 of 2002 for seeking a job in lieu of acquisition of his land. That petition got dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 08.04.2004. Subsequently, another Writ-A No.6568 of 2017 was filed with the same relief, which was dismissed by order dated 10.02.2017 by observing that a second petition would not be maintainable. Aggrieved by the order passed in the second Writ- A No.6568 of 2017, a Special Leave to Appeal No.9730 of 2017 was filed before the Apex Court. The Apex Court found no good reason to interfere with the order passed by the High Court. However, during the pendency of the proceeding before the Apex Court a statement was made by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not even received compensation though the land was acquired in the year 1980 and therefore he may be granted liberty to approach the authorities for getting compensation. The petitioner's submission was recorded without any further direction and all applications including the special leave to appeal was disposed off.
It appears that the petitioner thereafter approached the authorities concerned for compensation. It appears that the claim for compensation was examined and a report dated 08.03.2018 was submitted by the Executive Engineer stating that an amount of Rs.6882 remains to be paid. This report has now been taken as a fresh cause of action to claim compensation in respect of additional land admeasuring 1146.63 kari that was allegedly acquired way back in the year 1979 but in respect of which no award was allegedly passed. It is claimed that this additional land was not acquired but was utilized along with other parcels of land which were notified for acquisition.
We do not propose to entertain this petition because the claim for compensation in respect of the land that was allegedly utilized though not acquired has been raised for the first time after nearly 40 years from the date of its alleged utilization. Such a belated claim cannot be entertained. In Syed Maqbool Ali Vs. State of U.P., (2011) 15 SCC 383 it has been held by the Apex Court that belated claims in respect of compensation for acquisition of land should not ordinarily be entertained because it is not uncommon for villagers to offer/donate some part of their lands voluntarily for a public purpose which would benefit them or the community. It was observed by the Apex Court that when they offer their land for such public purpose, the land would be of little or negligible value. But decades later, when land values increase, either on account of passage of time or on account of development or improvements carried out by the State, the land holders come up with belated claims alleging that their lands were taken without acquisition and without their consent.
Even otherwise, if the petitioner could have approached this Court earlier in the year 2002, and thereafter in the year 2017, for employment on account of losing his land, he could have sought relief in respect of compensation as well. It is well settled that money claims are to be brought within the prescribed period of limitation.
Under the circumstances, such a belated petition is not to be entertained.
However, since the Executive Engineer, PWD, Azamgarh in his report dated 08.03.2018 has observed that an amount of Rs.6882 still remains to be paid to the petitioner, it is hereby provided that upon a representation of the petitioner to the Principal Secretary, PWD, Government of U.P., Lucknow, the Principal Secretary shall call for the records and shall examine whether any amount remains to be paid to the petitioner or not and if it is found that any amount, as has been reported in the report of Executive Engineer dated 08.03.2018, still remains to be paid to the petitioner, the same shall be paid along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date the same became payable. Such exercise shall be completed, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion as regards the merits of the claim of the petitioner that some amount as noticed above remains payable. This aspect will have to be decided by the Principal Secretary, PWD, Government of U.P., Lucknow after careful perusal of the records/reports.
With the aforesaid observation/direction, the petition is
disposed off.
Order Date :- 26.11.2018 AKShukla/-