BALJEET SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

Citation: [2019] 11 S.C.R. 646 · Decided: 08-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
646
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
BALJEET SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND
OTHERS ETC. ETC.
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
(Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.30404–30442 of 2017)
AUGUST 08, 2019
[ARUN MISHRA, ABDUL NAZEER AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
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
   [2019] 11 S.C.R. 646
646
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
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,
BALJEET SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS
ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
648

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.