JUDGEMENT
S.H.SHETH -
(1.)The petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 41 of 1967 are tenants in respect of the land under acquisition. The petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 1532 of 1965 are also tenants in respect of the land under acquisition. In both the cases the notifications issued under sec. 4 and under sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition-Act are the same. The notification under sec. 4 was issued on 15th April 1940. The notification under sec. 6 was issued on 13th April 1942. The award of compensation was made on 29th February 1960. Special Civil Application No. 41 of 1967 was filed on 12th January 1967. Special Civil Application No. 1532 of 1965 was filed in September 1965. So far as Special Civil Application No. 41 of 1967 is concerned it was filed seven years after the award was made and 25 years after the notification under sec. 6 was issued. So far as Special Civil Application No. 1532 of 1965 is concerned it was filed five years after the award was made and 23 years after the notification under sec. 6 was issued.
(2.)On these facts the first preliminary objection which has been raised on behalf of the State Government is that both the petitions are barred by gross delay and laches. It is contended that even a civil suit was grossly time-barred when these two petitions were filed. The petitioners have tried to explain this delay in paragraph 15 in Special Civil Application No. 41 of 1967. They have tried to justify this gross delay by stating that the Government had not taken possession of the property in question until 1965 when the said petition was filed. Therefore their attempt is to justify the delay on their part by referring to the alleged gross delay on the part of the Government. The second ground which they have stated is that the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation had been changing the street line from time to time and that therefore certain lands were excluded from the acquisition proceedings and certain lands were included therein. The third ground is that they were faced with the threat of eviction only in 1967. Similar grounds have been stated by the petitioners in the other Special Civil Application explaining the delay in filing it. In the affidavits-in-reply the State Government has tried to meet the allegations made against them on this count. In our opinion both these petitions suffer from gross delay.
(3.)Mr. Mehta who appears for the petitioners in both the petitions has tried to argue that the question of delay is not a material question in these two petitions because what is involved is a fundamental right of the petitioners. He has invited our attention to the decision of this High Court in Dalpatbhai Hemchand and others v. The Municipality of Chansma and another reported in VIII Gujarat Law Reporter 225 wherein the question which this High Court considered was the question relating to the effect of delay on the enforcement of fundamental rights. He has then invited our attention to the decision of the High Court of Bombay in the case of Kamalabai Harjivandas Parekh v. T. B. Desai and another reported in A. I. R 1966 Bombay 36. In that case the constitutional validity of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act 1952 was challenged and it was in that connection that the learned Judges were examining the question of delay on the enforcement of the petitioners fundamental rights.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.