LexSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus DIGAMBAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. DIGAMBAR MAY 12, 1995 [A.M. AHMADI, Cl, N. VENKATACHALA AND G.T. NANA VAT!, JJ.] Constitution of India-Art. 22~Writ jurisdiction-Discretionary relief-Laches or undue delay on the part of person seeking relief-Obligation C to establish his unblameworthy conduct. D Art. 13~Special Leave Petition-Mailltainability-Non-filing of ap- peals by State in some similar matters-Rejection of some SLP's in limine in similar matters-Whether can operate as a bar in entertaining SLP sub- sequently filed relating to similar mattei-Held, No. During the year 1971-72 when acute scarcity conditions prevailed in villages of the State of Maharashtra, to provide employment to small agriculturists and agricultural labour of those villages, the State Govern- ment had undertaken large scale scarcity relief works which included E 38,000 km. of road works. Collectors were specially instructed for ensuring that _the land required for such scarcity relief works were donated to the Government without any claim for compensation. In the year 1991, respon- dent, an agriculturist filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Con- stitution .of India for issue of a direction to the Government of Maharashtra to grant compensation to him for his land alleged to have F been utilised by the Government without his consent for a road work. Other 191 similar petitions were filed. The State Government urged for dismissal of the writ petitions on the ground qf laches on the part of writ petitioners in filing the petitions after an undue delay of 20 years. The High Court allowed the petitions G while refusing to entertain the ground of undue delay. The court held that 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. This Special Leave petition was filed against the judg- H ment of the High Court. 492 • - STATEv. DIGAMBAR 493 The appellant submitted that High Court's discretionary power A under Article 226 of the Constitution could be exercised to grant relief only to a ·person whose conduct does not disentitle him to obtain such discre- tionary relief and therefore the impugned judgment by which relief had been granted to the Writ petitioner refusing to consider the ground of laches urged on behalf of the State against grants of such relief was liable B to be interfered with. The respondent urged that when the State had not preferred appeals to this Court against some of earlier jndgments rendered in similar writ petitions filed before the High Court in the year 1987 and when some of the SLPs against a few of the other judgments in similar writ petitions C were rejected in limine by this Court, there was no valid judgment under appeal and the other 191 similar judgments in the writ petitions rendered following that judgment, on the ground that the High Court had wrongly exercised its discretion under Article 226 in granting relief to respondent and others similarly situated; that when the State Government had not D obtained gift deeds in respect of citizen's lands in relief works, it was not open to the State Go,veriinlent to contend that the delay of 20 years on the part of citizens of seeking re,l,ief under Article 226 had to be regarded as that which showed that the citlzens had either voluntarily given away their lands or acquiesced in the taking of such lands by State without compen- sation or waived their right to claim compensation for such lands. E The appellant in reply submitted that in the peculiar facts and circumstances, non-filing of such appeals was for the bonafide reason that being stray cases, some were regarded not worth appealing or for want of proper advice or even sheer negligence of officers of Government con- F cerned. Later judgments rendered by the High Court in some of the similar matter although had been sought to be appealed against, such SLP's were rejected in limine. When the High Court allowed the writ petition by the judgment under appeal and when that judgment was followed in allowing other 191 Writ petitions and when it was estimated to involve an expendi- ture of about 400 crores of rupees, the present Special Leave Petition was G liled. Therefore, the earlier non-questioning of certain judgments of the High Court and the dismissal of SLP's in limine
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.