Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking directions to allot alternate land under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The Court held that the petition was barred by delay and laches, having been filed 56 years after the original allotment letter to the petitioner’s father. The Court held:
“This is a clear case of a cause of action being resurrected by making representations which was not pursued from the year 1968… and/or immediately on the petitioner’s father having passed away in the year 1972… The petition needs to be dismissed being barred by inordinate delay and laches.”
It further stated:
“We cannot permit the process of law to be abused in such manner, by entertaining the present petition.”
Facts
The petitioner claimed entitlement to alternate land in Mumbai, asserting that his father, a displaced person post-partition, had been allotted land in Bhokardan, District Jalna, under the Displaced Persons Act in 1968. However, possession was never granted. Upon recent inquiry, the petitioner discovered the land was not evacuee property and sought alternate land from CIDCO lands in Navi Mumbai and areas acquired for the New Bombay International Airport.
Despite repeated representations from 2013 to 2023, the petitioner’s pleas were ignored, prompting the filing of the writ petition in 2024.
Issues
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to allotment of alternate land in lieu of non-possession of land allegedly allotted to his father in 1968.
- Whether the petition is barred by delay and laches.
- Whether the Central Government was a necessary party to the proceedings.
- Whether any enforceable legal right subsisted after the repeal of the Displaced Persons Act, 1954.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The petitioner claimed his father was entitled to 48.8 units of land under the Displaced Persons Act, based on verified compensation.
- Despite the 1968 allotment, possession was never given, and the land turned out not to be evacuee property.
- Alternate lands belonging to the Custodian of Evacuee Property were available in New Bombay and CIDCO-acquired areas.
- The petitioner relied on various judgments, including Union of India v. International Sindhi Panchayats and Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC, to assert a continuing right.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The alleged allotment letter of 1968 was unverifiable and absent from government records.
- The petitioner approached the court after 56 years and had never obtained a certification from the Central Government, which held the power of allotment until 1971.
- The Displaced Persons Act was repealed in 2005, and no case of the petitioner’s father was pending as of that date.
- CIDCO lands were no longer with the Custodian and were not part of the compensation pool.
- The petition was barred by gross delay and laches, and amounted to abuse of the court process.
Analysis of the Law
The Court emphasized that rights under the Displaced Persons Act had to be asserted within a reasonable time and could not be resurrected through delayed representations. It observed:
“Assertion of such legal right, which stood deeply buried by passage of time, undoubtedly would be fatal to the petition…”
The petitioner had no enforceable right under the repealed Displaced Persons Act, nor did he pursue remedies while the Act was in force. The absence of Central Government as a party further undermined his case.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied extensively on precedent, including:
- Tatoba Rama Chavan v. Collector, Kolhapur: Where a 38-year delay in challenging land acquisition was held to be fatal.
- Abhay Kinwasara v. State of Maharashtra: Where a 56-year-old challenge was dismissed due to delay and inability to verify historical records.
- Mutha Associates v. State of Maharashtra, Chennai Water Board v. Murali Babu, and Baljeet Singh v. State of U.P.: Emphasizing that delay and laches extinguish legal remedies.
- The Supreme Court’s decisions held that resurrecting old claims disrupts settled legal rights and administrative records and should not be entertained.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found no explanation in the writ petition for the delay:
“The petitioner has explained the delay and laches as averred in paragraph 37 of the petition which reads thus: ‘The Petitioner states that there is no delay or latches in filing the present petition.’”
This, the Court held, was a deliberate attempt to mislead.
The petitioner had also failed to establish a continuing legal right. The Court remarked that even assuming the father was a displaced person, no action was taken in his lifetime, and the petitioner waited until 2013 (41 years later) to make a representation.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition, observing:
“This petition is wholly misconceived, and in fact, an abuse of the process of law.”
While it refrained from imposing costs, the Court made clear that the petitioner’s conduct warranted judicial reproach.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the doctrine that equitable and discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be granted where there is inordinate delay and absence of a legal right. It signals that courts will not entertain stale claims based on outdated entitlements under repealed laws, particularly where no effort was made to pursue those rights timely.
The ruling also underscores the importance of proper parties and substantiated documentation when asserting decades-old rights, especially those involving land and government compensation schemes.