eLegalix - Allahabad High Court Judgment Information System ...

JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37443 of 2011 at Allahabad Dated-21.10....http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.doPage 102 of 19710/21/2011Chaura Sadatpur01/6/197616/9/197628/10/197625/9/1978Alaverdipur21/3/198322/3/1983Learned counsel appearing for the State as well as the learned counsel appearing for the Authority havevehemently submitted that most of the writ petitions having been filed with great delay and laches deserve to bedismissed on this ground alone. It is submitted that the petitioners who have been not vigilant of their rightscannot be allowed to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court after a long delay. It is further contended that aftertaking possession the land was validly allotted to the third parties/allottees/builders who have made hugeinvestments in pursuance of the allotment and have changed their position which is an additional factor for notentertaining the writ petition. It is contended that the equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 can be exercised infavour of only those persons who have been vigilant of their rights and for not those who were indolent.Furthermore, the mere fact that in cases of some vigilant persons, judgments were given by this Court or the ApexCourt cannot be a ground for permitting the petitioners to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. It is contended thatmost of the petitioners have filed the writ petition only after the judgment given by the Apex Court in Greater NoidaIndustrial Development, Authority Vs. Devendra Kumar & Ors, 2011 (6) ADJ 480, decided on 06/7/2011.Shri L. Nageshwar Rao, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the State suggested that a cut off date be fixedtaking the date of judgment of the above case i.e. 06/7/2011 and all the petitions filed after 06/7/2011 who havegot impetus of filing the writ petition should be dismissed as barred by time.Learned counsel appearing for the intervenors have also vehemently argued that the petitioners who have beensleeping over their rights and have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court with delay and laches should not beentertained and their petitions be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone.Learned counsel for the petitioners on the other hand has submitted that in the facts of the present case thepetitioners claim be not rejected on the ground of delay and laches. It is submitted that the petitioners have actedbonafide in invoking the jurisdiction of this Court on a valid ground. Petitioners were aggrieved from acquisitionsince very beginning because their agricultural land which was source of their livelihood and part of their land onwhich they have constructed "Abadi" and were residing have been taken away by acquisition by making paymentof a meagre amount, but the petitioners were under bonafide belief that their land has been acquired for PlannedIndustrial Development of the District and the establishment of the industries of the area shall provide source oflivelihood to their children in getting employment in these industries which shall suitably mitigate their miserieshence they accepted the compensation as their fate despite they being aggrieved and dissatisfied. In some of thewrit petitions, allegations have also been made that farmers resorted to agitations which was crushed by policeforce. It is useful to refer to the pleadings in some of the cases by which the petitioners have given justificationsfor approaching the Court with delay. We have already referred to the pleadings in the main writ petition.In Writ Petition No.47502/2011, Jugendra and 75 others Vs. State of U.P.& Ors. which relates to the acquisition ofVillage Tusiyana, petitioners have stated following in paragraphs 7,8 and 31 which are quoted below:"7. That, after having taken possession, and as against the purpose or which the lands in dispute was alleged tohave been acquired namely Planned industrial Development the entire land was allotted to different propertydevelopers, colonizers and builders. The petitioners bring on record a copy of allotment letter dated 14.8.2007which is being filed herewith and is marked as Annexure-6 to this writ petition. A perusal of allotment letter dated14.8.2007 would clearly indicate that the land which was agricultural in nature belonging to the petitioners andwhich was acquired for Planned industrial Development was actually allotted to various construction companies,Builders and Colonizers. A reference of 9 such builders and colonizers has been mentioned in the allotment letterdated 14.8.2007. The fact of allotment letter made through letter dated 14.8.2007 has come to the knowledge ofthe petitioners on the 3rd week of July 2001 which they also made an enquiry and as to which was the fate oftheir land specially in view oif the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in Shah berries Case (Ref. Devendra KumarVersus State of U.P.). they obtained a copy of letter dated 14.8.2007 which was made available to them on 8thAugust, 2011 and are ow filing the present writ petition.8.That, at the time when the land in dispute was acquired the petitioners were given to understand that on