UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. HAR DAYAL

Citation: [2009] 15 S.C.R. 1126

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN, K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN

Case summary

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. HAR DAYAL.pdf

Judgment text

[2009] 15 (ADDL. ) S. C. R. 1126 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. :.. ,"'. " HAR DAYAL (Civil Appeal No. 4185 of 2009) NOVEMBER 24, 2009 [R. V. RAVEENDRAN AND K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.

] Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226 - Writ petition claiming allotment of land under Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, ~ 1954 - Enormous delay in filing of - Writ petition entertained by High Court and payment of compensation at the rate prevailing on the date of filing ordered - HELD: The single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court have totally ignored the enormous delay of more than 30 years on the part ofclaimant in approaching the Court- The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that merely giving representation willneither ~ extend the /imitation norwipe out the delay and /aches -Further, ~ claimant and his brother were categoricaily 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 - Claimant could have challenged that order on the ground that he was entitled to land and not cash - But he did not do so - Refusal to allot the balance land, attained }finality - Obviously, it could not be reopened by filing a writ petition in 1996, more than 45 years after verification of claim, ' and 7 years after categorical refusal to allot land - Writ petitions ought to have been rejected on the ground of delay anrl :aches - There was no question of rewarding delay on the part of claimant by directing payment of current market value of 1996 for the undelivered land, contrary to the Rules - Besides, orders of single Judge and Division Bench are also bad fof vagueness - The single Judge held that as no land was available, claimant was not entitled to land but nevertheless held that 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 land as on the date of 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- Value ofland is always with reference to a particularland 8 or a land in a specified area - Government cannot be expected to calculate the value of 'land' in 1996 and pay the value as compensation - On the facts and circumstances, judgment of High Court directing payment of market value as in 1996 cannot be sustained - Writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay and /aches - But as single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court have exercised the discretion to ignore the delay and ent-ertain the writ petition, the discretion exercised is not interfered with - As the rules contemplated allotment of land being staggered depending upon availability of land, during pendency of the appeal, the o appellants very fairly offered to allot the respondent's share in remaining agricultural land in some rural area in Rajasthan - ..

Therefore, appellants would deliver claimant's share to the extent of 2 std. acres fJnd 8. 11112 units of agricultural land in the State of Rajasthan - It is clarified that claimant 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 ofRs. 383. 50 - Offer of land by Government in the instant case, being peculiar to the facts of the case, shall not be treated as a precedent in any 1 other stale claims of other displaced persons - Displaced Persons (Claims) Act, 1950 - Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 - Rehf]bilitation of displaced persons. S. S. Rathore vs. State of M. P. AIR 1990 SC 10, referred to. Case Law Reference : AIR 1990 SC 10 referred to Para 7 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4185 of 2006. k:' From the Judgment & Order dated 31. 01. 2005 of the High Court of Delhi in LPA No. 920 of 2003.

CVS Rao, Sushma Suri, for the Appellants. · Vinay Kumar Garg, Jyoti, for the Respondent. The Order of the Court was delivered by ORDER ... .. l R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J. 1. 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 '-1 " ! aches. 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 I areas of Delhi have different market values. In fact, there is no rural agricultural land available and no standard market price for . 0 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. - 9. On the facts and circumstances, the judgment ofthe High Court directing payment of the market value as in 1996 cannot be sustained. The writ petition ought to have been dismissed on J. the ground of delay and laches. ~ 10.

But as the High Court (learned Single Judge ·an~ 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 <;ippeal, the appellants very fairly offered to allot the respondent's share in y '-. 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. . 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. R. P. Appeal disposed of.