BALJEET SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. ETC. ETC & Ors. v. STATE OF U.P & Ors.

Delay/laches: Delay in filing Special Leave Petitions – Condonation of – On facts, SLP’s filed with regard to inadequacy of compensation awarded by the High Court in 1996, claiming parity in compensation awarded to their co-villagers in a different location – Inordinate delay of 21 years in filing SLPs challenging the order passed by the High Court – Applications seeking condonation of delay –Held: Petitioners miserably failed to make out a case to condone the huge delay of 21 years – No sufficient cause has been shown – Only explanation in approaching this Court is given in the application that it was only in December 2016, the claimants pertaining to village Kasana got enhanced compensation of Rs. 65/- per sq. yard from this Court – Nothing on record that after the impugned order of the High Court, the petitioners made any grievance/objection with respect to inadequacy of the compensation determined by the High Court – On the contrary, they accepted the compensation awarded – Even if the petitioners are denied the interest and/or the other statutory benefits for the delayed period, to direct the State/acquiring body to pay the enhanced amount of compensation after 21 years would be unreasonable and would have a financial burden upon them and it would be very difficult for them to recover the same from the allottees – Thus, the huge delay in filing the special leave petitions cannot be condoned and the applications for condonation are dismissed. Jurisprudence: Non-exercise of right for a long time – Effect of – Held: Right becomes non-existent – In cases where there is no limitation period prescribed by any statute relating to certain proceedings, the courts on the basis of doctrine of laches and delay as well as doctrine of acquiescence, have non-suited the litigants 646 BALJEET SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS 647 who approached the court belatedly without any justifiable explanation for bringing the action after unreasonable delay – In cases where the action is not brought within that prescribed period, the aggrieved party loses remedy and cannot enforce his legal right after the period of limitation is over – However, if there is a justifiable explanation for bringing the action after the prescribed period of limitation is over and sufficient cause is shown, the court may allow the prayer for condonation of delay – If the aggrieved party does not initiate the proceedings within the period of limitation without any sufficient cause, he can be denied the relief on the ground of unexplained laches and delay and on the presumption that such person has waived his right or acquiesced with the order. Dismissing the Special Leave Petitions, the Court HELD: 1.1 The petitioners have miserably failed to make out a case to condone the huge delay of approximately 21 years. No sufficient cause has been shown to condone the huge delay of approximately 21 years. In the application itself it is submitted by the petitioners there is an inordinate delay in approaching this Court. The only explanation in approaching this Court after about 21 years is given in paragraph 3 of the application that it was only in December 2016, the claimants pertaining to village Kasana got the enhanced compensation from this Hon’ble Court to the tune of Rs. 65/- per sq yard. [Para 7][655-F-H; 656-A]

1.2 The petitioners have stated that though there is a reasonable case made out by the petitioners to get the enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs.65/- per square yard, but fairly enough in order to balance the equity, this Court may not grant interest from the date of the judgment of the High Court till the filing of the special leave petitions before this Court. Except the explanation in paragraph 3, there is no other explanation whatsoever explaining the huge delay of approximately 21 years. Neither any poverty is pleaded nor any financial difficulty is pleaded. Nothing is on record that after the impugned common judgment and order is passed by the High Court, the petitioners made any grievance/objection with respect to inadequacy of the compensation determined by the High Court. On the contrary, A B C D E F G H 648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 11 S.C.R. all the petitioners have accepted the compensation as per the judgment and award passed by the reference Court determining the compensation at the rate of Rs. 30/- per square yard. It appears that with respect to some of the land owners even the execution petitions are pending with respect to recovery of the differential amount of compensation, determined by the reference Court and the High Court as by the impugned common judgment and order the High Court has reduced the compensation from Rs.30/- per sq. yard to Rs. 22/- per sq. yard. The fact remains that after the impugned common judgment and order is passed by the High Court, no grievance at all is made by the petitioners with respect to inadequacy of the compensation determined by the High Court. Thus, it can be said that for a period of approximately 21 years no grievance was made by the petitioners. Therefore, considering the terms of doctrine of acquiescence, the petitioners lose their right to complain. This principle is based on the doctrine of acquiescence implying that in such a case the party who did not make any objection acquiesced into the alleged wrongful act of the other party and therefore has no right to complain against that alleged wrong. [Para 7.1][656-C-H; 657-A-B]

1.3 It is a very recognised principle of jurisprudence that a right not exercised for a long time is non-existent. Even when there is no limitation period prescribed by any statute relating to certain proceedings, in such cases, courts have coined the doctrine of laches and delay as well as doctrine of acquiescence and non-suited the litigants who approached the court belatedly without any justifiable explanation for bringing the action after unreasonable delay. In those cases, where the period of limitation is prescribed within which the action is to be brought before the court, if the action is not brought within that prescribed period, the aggrieved party loses remedy and cannot enforce his legal right after the period of limitation is over, however, subject to the prayer for condonation of delay and if there is a justifiable explanation for bringing the action after the prescribed period of limitation is over and sufficient cause is shown, the court may condone the delay. Therefore, in a case where the period of limitation is prescribed and the action is not brought within the A B C D E F G H BALJEET SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS 649 period of limitation and subsequently proceedings are initiated after the period of limitation along with the prayer for condonation of delay, in that case, the applicant has to make out a sufficient cause and justify the cause for delay with a proper explanation. It is not that in each and every case despite the sufficient cause is not shown and the delay is not properly explained, the court may condone the delay. To make out a case for condonation of delay, the applicant has to make out a sufficient cause/reason which prevented him in initiating the proceedings within the period of limitation. Otherwise, he will be accused of gross negligence. If the aggrieved party does not initiate the proceedings within the period of limitation without any sufficient cause, he can be denied the relief on the ground of unexplained laches and delay and on the presumption that such person has waived his right or acquiesced with the order. These principles are based on the principles relatable to sound public policy that if a person does not exercise his right for a long time then such right is non- existent. [Para 8][657-C-H; 658-A]

1.4 In the instant case, lands were acquired as far back as in the year 1985 and the award by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was declared in the year 1988. The reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.30/- per square yard, which came to be reduced by the High Court by the impugned common judgment and order in the year 1996. The lands were acquired for Industrial development purposes. That after the acquisition, the land has been developed, infrastructure and amenities are laid and the developed land has been allotted approximately before 30 years. It is the specific case on behalf of the respondents that the rate of allotment was based on the cost of acquisition and the amount spent on development, laying out the infrastructure. Therefore, if the cost of acquisition is increased now and the State/acquiring body is directed to pay enhanced compensation, in that case, it would be very difficult to recover the difference of amount of compensation from the allottees after decades of allotment. The acquiring body will have to make additional budgetary provision and it would be very difficult for the acquiring body to recover the difference of compensation from A B C D E F G H 650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 11 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H the allottees after so many years. Even if the petitioners are denied the interest and/or the other statutory benefits for the delayed period as requested by the counsel for the petitioners, in that case also, to direct the State/acquiring body to pay the enhanced amount of compensation after number of years (21 years) would be unreasonable and would have a financial burden upon them and it would be very difficult for the State/acquiring body to recover the same from the allottees. [Para 9][658-E-H; 659-A-C]

1.5 The huge delay of 7534, 7542 and 7886 days respectively in filing the special leave petitions cannot be condoned and the applications for condonation are dismissed. [Para 10][659-D]