VENKATACHALA, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) During the year 1971-72 when acute scarcity conditions prevailed in nearly 23,000 villages of the State of Maharashtra, large scale scarcity relief works had to be undertaken by the State Government to provide employment to small agriculturists their agricultural labour of those villages for earning their livelihood. Such relief works included 38,000 Km. of road works. As the State Government was not in a position to divert relief funds at its disposal for payment of compensation for lands to be utilised in road works, Collectors, put in-charge of such works, were instructed not to accord sanction to them without ensuring that they did not involve any payment of compensation by the Government. Collectors, were, indeed specially instructed to impress upon the non-official and other social workers to use their good offices in ensuring that the land required for such scarcity relief works were donated to the Government without any claim for compensation. In the year 1991, respondent, an agriculturist of Vepani village in District Nanded of Maharashtra, filed a writ petition, W.P. No. 3124/91 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench against the appellant, the State of Maharashtra. The relief sought in that writ petition was for issue of a direction to the Government of Maharashtra to grant compensation to him for his land alleged to have been utilised by the Government without his consent for Vepana-Gogri Road - a road work carried out by the agencies of the State Government, in the course of execution of scarcity relief works undertaken by the State Government in the year 1971-72. When the said writ petition, as well as other 191 similar writ petitions, had been set down for admission before the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court, the Hon'ble Judges constituting that Bench, called upon the concerned Government Pleader to appear for the State by waiving service of notice on it. The learned Government Pleader, who, accordingly, appeared on behalf of the State in those writ petitions, urged for dismissal of the writ petitions on the ground of laches on the part of writ petitioners, i.e., undue delay of 20 years, which had occurred in the filing of the writ petitions. But, the Bench of the High Court refused to entertain the ground of undue delay urged by the learned Government Pleader against the grant of the relief sought for in the writ petitions and allowed the writ petitions by its judgment dated October 10, 1990. The portion of the judgment which could be regarded as material, reads thus: "Mr. Kakade, learned Government Pleader faintly urged that assuming that the petitioner/petitioners were right, but since possession was taken sometime in the year 1972, the present writ petition filed in the year 1991 are hopelessly time barred and this delay itself is sufficient to reject the petition. We are afraid, in a welfare State, the State Government cannot take such attitude when citizens come before the Courts and complain that they have been deprived of their property without following due process of law and without paying the compensation. It certainly affects the valuable right of the citizen to receive compensation. There is no dispute that the possession of lands was taken sometime in 1972. There is no Investigation on factual aspects by any agency so far. The question as to whether any land of the petitioner has been taken possession of in the year 1971-72 as alleged in the petition will have to be enquired into by a competent Officer. We accordingly direct the Collector or any other Officer nominated by him but not below the rank of Deputy Collector to initiate the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
(3.) S. L. P. (C) No. 10723 of 1993 filed by the State of Maharashtra relates to the said judgment rendered in W.P. No. 3124 of 1991 by the High Court. S.L.Ps filed by the State of Maharashtra in respect of judgments in other 191 similar writ petitions rendered by the High Court, following the above judgment, are not yet registered on account of non-removal of defects pointed out by the Registry of this Court in respect of them.;