Union Of India And Ors vs Har Dayal

Union of India & Ors. ... Appellants

Vs.

Har Dayal ... Respondent

O R D E R

R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.

The respondent claims to be the Karta of the `HUF of

Tek Chand' consisting of himself and his two brothers

(Harichand and Lachhman Das). Respondent's family migrated

from Pakistan to India in 1947. Respondent and his two

brothers filed claims before the competent authority on

22.9.1950, as refugees/displaced persons seeking allotment

of land as compensation in lieu of their lands in

Pakistan. Their claim was verified and registered for 7

Standard Acres and 3.1/4 Units vide order dated 5.11.1952

by the Claims Officer, Delhi, under the Displaced Persons

(Claims) Act, 1950. Towards partial satisfaction of the

said verified claim, initially 5 Standard Acres and 4.1/3 2

Units situated in Bawana, Delhi was allotted and delivered

to them. The question of allotment of remaining land was

pending for several years and in the year 1965 the Office

of the Regional Settlement Commissioner informed the Land

Allotment Officer that after taking note of the land that

was already allotted in partial satisfaction, the balance

agricultural land allotted to them (respondent and his two

brothers) was only 2 Standard Acres and 8.11/12 Units.

2. The respondent claims that he was thereafter pursuing

his request for allotment of the remaining land, on behalf

of himself and his two brothers as Kartha of HUF. It is

stated that the file was not traceable for some years in

the concerned Ministry and subsequently the file was

traced and transferred to the Land and Building

Department. Ultimately by orders dated 12.9.1989 and

21.9.1989, the respondent and his two brothers were

categorically informed by the Ministry of Home Affairs

(Rehabilitation Divison-Settlements) that no agricultural

land was available in the rural areas of Delhi for

allotment, and Rs.383.50 being the compensation payable to

each of them, corresponding to the extent which was not

allotted, was credited to their account in terms of the

relevant rules. Even after the receipt of the said

communication the respondent and his brothers did not take

any legal action. In the year 1994, the respondent 3

obtained a letter of recommendation from a Central

Minister and tried to revive the stale issue. The

representation was again rejected. It is thereafter, in

the year 1996, that the respondent filed a writ petition

in the Delhi High Court seeking allotment of the land.

3. A learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the

writ petition in part with costs of Rs.5000/- on

16.5.2003. The learned Single Judge was of the view that

after all these years it was not possible to issue any

direction for allotment of agricultural land to the

respondent as such land was not available. He was,

however, of the view that the appellants, due to their

carelessness, had deprived the respondent of the allotment

of the land. Therefore he directed the appellants to work

out the market value of the extent of land to which

respondent was entitled as on the date of the filing of

the writ petition in 1996 and make payment within two

months. The appeal filed by the Union of India was

dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court on

31.1.2005. The said order is challenged in this appeal by

special leave.

4. The claim of respondent and his brothers for

compensation by way of agricultural land was verified and 4

certified as 7 Standard Acres and 3.1/4 units in 1952.

Depending on the availability, 5 Standard Acres and 4.1/3

units of land was allotted and delivered to them. In 1965,

it was confirmed that as per the verified claim, the

respondent and his brothers were still entitled to 2

Standard Acres and 8.11/12 Units. As per the rules, though

normally compensation was payable in terms of rural

agricultural land from the compensation pool created with

evacuee lands, cash compensation was payable in the event

of non-availability of rural agricultural land. The cash

compensation payable under the Rules was Rs.450/- per

standard acre and nothing more. It is in these

circumstances, due to non-availability of agricultural

land, he and his brothers were informed that cash

equivalent of compensation, that is Rs.383.50 each was

credited to them and they could draw the same.

5. The respondent chose to approach the High Court only

in 1996 seeking allotment of the remaining land. He

contends that under the provisions of the Displaced

Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, the

central government had to take necessary steps for the

custody, management and disposal of the lands in the

compensation pool and make it available to the displaced

persons; that he could not be denied allotment of the

balance land as per the verified claim, on the ground that 5

the evacuee lands were encroached; that as he had settled

down in Delhi, under the Rules there was a duty cast on

the appellants to allot land in the neighbourhood of

Delhi; and that if the evacuee lands are not available on

account of encroachment, it is the duty of Central

Government to evict the encroachers and give him the land

as per the entitlement.

6. On the other hand, the appellants pointed out that

the respondent was claiming allotment in pursuance of a

claim verified as long back as 22.9.1950; that he had not

pursued the matter for one reason or the other since the

year 1965 when the Settlement Commissioner certified that

the respondent and his brothers were still entitled to the

balance of 2 Standard Acres and 8.11/2 Units; that from

1965 to 1989, the respondent did not take any legal

action; that in 1989, the respondent was informed that he

was only entitled to compensation as provided under the

Act and the Rules as no land was available; that even

after such categorical rejection he did not approach the

court and in the circumstances, the writ petition filed in

the year 1996, was liable to be rejected on the ground of

delay and laches. It is submitted that having slept over

his rights for over 40 years, the respondent can not

belatedly demand that the encroachers should be removed 6

and the land should be made available. It was submitted

that the Act and Rules contemplated payment of

compensation to displaced persons, usually in the form of

allotment of agricultural land situated in a rural area,

but where land was not available, the rules contemplated

payment of compensation as provided in the Rules (at the

rate of Rs.450/- per acre) and under no circumstances, the

respondent could claim anything more.

7. The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench have

totally ignored the enormous delay of more than 30 years

on the part of the respondent in approaching the Court.

This Court has repeatedly held that merely giving

representation will neither extend the limitation nor wipe

out the delay and laches. [See : S.S. Rathore vs. State

of MP - AIR 1990 SC 10]. Further the respondent and his

brothers were categorically informed in September, 1989

that due to non-availability of agricultural land, they

were entitled only to cash equivalent of compensation as

per the rules and therefore, Rs.383/50 each being their

share of compensation was to their credit and they could

draw the same. Respondent could have challenged that order

on the ground that he was entitled to land and not cash.

But he did not do so. The refusal to allot the balance

land whether right or wrong, attained finality. Obviously, 7

it could not be reopened by filing a writ petition in

1996, more than 45 years after the verification of the

claim, and 7 years after categorical refusal to allot

land. The writ petitions ought to have been rejected on

the ground of delay and laches. There was no question of

rewarding the delay on the part of respondent, by

directing payment of current market value of 1996 for the

undelivered land, contrary to the Rules.

8. The orders of the learned Single Judge and Division

Bench are also bad for vagueness. The learned Single Judge

held that as no land was available the respondent was not

entitled to land but nevertheless held that the

compensation of Rs.383.50 calculated in accordance with

the Rules, amounted to a pittance after all these years

and therefore he should be given the market value of the

land as on the date of the writ petition. But different

areas of Delhi have different market values. In fact,

there is no rural agricultural land available and no

standard market price for agricultural land. The value of

land is always with reference to a particular land or a

land in a specified area. We fail to understand how the

appellants can be expected to calculate the value of the

`land' in 1996 and pay him the value as compensation. 8

9. On the facts and circumstances, the judgment of the

High Court directing payment of the market value as in

1996 cannot be sustained. The writ petition ought to have

been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

10. But as the High Court (learned Single Judge and

Division Bench) have chosen to exercise the discretion to

ignore the delay and entertain the writ petition, we do

not propose to interfere with the exercise of discretion.

As the rules contemplated allotment of land being

staggered depending upon availability of land, during the

pendency of this appeal, the appellants very fairly

offered to allot the respondent's share in remaining

agricultural land in some rural area in Rajasthan. This

has been referred to in the orders of this Court dated

5.8.2005, 31.7.2008 and 22.10.2009. We therefore dispose

of the appeal recording the submission that appellants

will deliver the respondent's share in the extent of 2

Std. Acres and 8.11/12 Units of agricultural land in the

State of Rajasthan to appellant within six months from

today. It is clarified that appellant will have no choice

in the matter and whatever land is offered in Rajasthan,

should have to be accepted. If he is not willing to accept

such land, he may receive the sum of Rs.383.50. 9

11. The offer of land by appellant in this case, being

peculiar to the facts of this case shall not be treated as

a precedent in any other stale claims of other displaced

persons.

___________________J.

(R V Raveendran)

New Delhi; ____________________J. November 24, 2009. (K S Radhakrishnan)