D.N.PATEL, J. - (1.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners' forefathers land was acquired under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , in 1955, but, no compensation was paid to their forefathers and therefore, present petition has been preferred in the year 2008, It is also submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that they obtained information under the Right to Information Act about acquisition of the property belonging to the forefathers of the petitioners and as the compensation has not been paid in the year 1955, the present writ petition has been preferred in the year 2008.
(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that false and frivolous petition has been preferred by the petitioners. Compensation was already paid at the relevant time as per letter Annexure -5 to the Interlocutory Application No. 1030 of 2009 in W.P. (C) No. 4296 of 2008. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that as per the letter at Annexure -5 to the Interlocutory Application, amount of compensation of Rs. 10,813/ - was paid by cheque bearing No. 024479 dated 31st March, 1951 to Khan Bahadur Habibur Rahman and the petitioners are claiming their rights as legal heirs of Khan Bahadur Habibur Rahman. It is also vehemently submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the petition has been preferred after approximately fifty years i.e. after half a century. Possession is already taken away by the Government in the year 1955 or prior thereto and therefore, the petitioners were very well aware about the land acquisition. Petitioners are not cultivating the land. In these sets of circumstances, there is gross and unexplained delay of 53 years in preferring this writ petition. In these circumstances, the petition may not be entertained by this Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Having heard learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that: (i) it is alleged by the petitioners that the land belonging to their forefathers was acquired in the year 1955 A.D., but, no compensation was paid under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and therefore, the petition has been preferred in the year 2008. Possession of the property was already taken over by the respondents from 1955 A.D. Therefore, these petitioners were fully aware of the land acquisition proceedings then also, no petition has been preferred for a period approximately fifty years. There is no explanation of this long delay by the petitioners. (ii) from the facts of the case it appears that the present petitioners are claiming their right through one Khan Bahadur Habibur Rahman. It appears from Annexure -5 letter annexed with Interlocutory Application No. 1030 of 2009 preferred in W.P. (C) no 4296 of 2008 that by cheque No. 024479 dated 31st of March, 1951, an amount of Rs. 10,813/ - was paid to Khan Bahadur Habibur Rahman. Thus, there is payment of the compensation by the respondents. (iii) the petitioners have got information under the Right to Information Act that a full compensation has not been paid for the land acquired in the year 1955. This contention is not accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that looking to the letter at Annexure - 5 of the aforesaid Interlocutory Application, the amount of the compensation has already been paid to Khan Bahadur Habibur Rahman and also there is gross unexplained delay on the part of the petitioners of approximately fifty long years in filing this writ petition. Law helps those who are vigilant and not who are lethargic or dormant. Possession of the property was already taken over by the Government in 1955 A.D. no cultivation was going on by the petitioners upon the property in question. Thus, petitioners were fully aware of the land acquisition proceedings right from very beginning. They ought to. have approached the Court at the relevant time. For this reason also, I am not inclined to exercise powers conferred upon this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) AS a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, there is no substance in this writ petition. Hence, it is hereby dismissed. Interlocutory Application No. 1030 of 2009 stands disposed of, in view of the final order passed in the writ petition.;