Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for the respondents.
This writ petition arises out of proceedings for determining compensation under Land Acquisition Act. Land belonging to petitioners 5 to 7 and Ismail predecessor interest of petitioners no.1 to 4 was acquired under Land Acquisition Act. Collector Meerut gave the award on 12.9.1981 offering the compensation @ of Rs.17.23 per sq. yd. One Dharmveer Singh whose land had also been acquired by the same notification applied for making reference which was accordingly done and matter was referred to the District Judge Meerut where it was registered as L.A. Reference no.131 of 1985. The District Judge Meerut allowed the reference through judgment and order dated 2.1.1990 and enhanced the compensation by determining the market value of the acquired land at the time of Section 4 notification to Rs.22.97 per sq. yd. (an increase of about Rs.5.5 per sq. yd.) Thereafter, petitioners filed applications for payment of similar enhanced compensation under Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act on 31.5.1990 before Collector/S.L.O.(Joint Organisation Meerut). The Collector/S.L.O. rejected the applications through three orders of the same date i.e. 29.12.1994. First application was given by Ismail and second by Take Chand and Peeru, petitioners no.5 and 7 and the third was given by Raj Singh since deceased and survived by his daughter Smt. Kamlesh, petitioner no.6. Applications were rejected on the ground that they had been filed after more than three months from the date of judgment of the reference Court in Dharam Vir's case. In para 4 of each application it was stated that the application was within time after excluding the time consumed/spent in obtaining certified copy of judgment of the District Judge.
It is extremely unfortunate that nothing was done by the petitioners against order dated 29.12.1994 instead they filed fresh applications under Section 18 and 28-A of Land Acquisition Act on 27.3.1995 which were rejected on 13.8.1998 by A.D.M. (L.A.) Joint Organisation Meerut. The order of S.L.A.O./A.D.M. Dated 13.8.1998 is Annexure 4 to the writ petition. Petitioners committed another blunder. They filed appeals against the orders dated 13.8.1998 before the Commissioner which were not at all maintainable. The third blunder was that even appeals were filed after six or seven years i.e. in the year 2004-05.
The application were rejected on 13.8.1998 on the ground that earlier order dated 29.12.1994 was final and no fresh application was maintainable. Against the order of A.D.M. dated 13.8.1998 passed on various applications filed by different petitioners, four appeals were filed being appeal no.21 to 24 of 2004-05. Appeals were dismissed by Commissioner, Meerut, Division Meerut on 25.2.2005 through Annexure 5 to the writ petition holding the appeals to be not maintainable. The fourth blunder is that petitioners approached this Court after about 1 ½ year therefrom i.e. on 21.8.2006.
Even though I fully agree with the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that initial applications filed by the petitioners on 31.5.1990 were within time as they were entitled to the exclusion of the time consumed in obtaining certified copy, however, no relief can be granted to the petitioners on the ground that they have been sleeping for too long and on several stretches.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the following authorities:
1. V.R. Rao Vs. S. Collieries Company Ltd. 2010(10)SCC 650.
In this case application under Section 28-A(1) was allowed on 31.12.1990. On the same date the claimant filed an application under Section 28-A (3) of the Land Acquisition Act which remained pending for several years. In that background Supreme Court held that delay was not fatal.
2. S.M. Yusuf A.M. Mulla Vs. S.L.A.O. J.T.2012(6) SC 185. The said judgment does not deal with the delay.
3. Tukaram Kana Joshi Vs. M.I.D.C. decided on 2.11.2012 down loaded from 2012 STPL(Web) 638 SC. In this case about 30 years delay has been condoned on the ground that possession of land had been taken without any acquisition or payment of compensation. Accordingly, the principle enunciated therein is not applicable to the facts of the instant case.
Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.12.2012 vkg