UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus HAR DAYAL

Citation: [2009] 15 S.C.R. 1126 · Decided: 24-11-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1126 
A 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
v. 
:..,"'." 
HAR DAYAL 
(Civil Appeal No. 4185 of 2009) 
NOVEMBER 24, 2009 
B 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 226 - Writ petition claiming allotment of land under 
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 
~ 
c 1954 - Enormous delay in filing of - Writ petition entertained 
by High Court and payment of compensation at the rate 
prevailing on the date of filing ordered - HELD: The single 
Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court have totally 
ignored the enormous delay of more than 30 years on the part 
D of claimant in approaching the Court- The Supreme Court has 
repeatedly held that merely giving representation willneither 
~ 
extend the /imitation nor wipe out the delay and /aches -Further, 
~ 
claimant and his brother were categoricaily informed in 
September, 1989 that due to non-availability of agricultural 
E land, they were entitled only to cash equivalent of 
compensation as per the rules and, therefore, Rs.383.50 each 
being their share of compensation was to their credit and they 
could draw the same - Claimant could have challenged that 
order on the ground that he was entitled to land and not cash -
But he did not do so - Refusal to allot the balance land, attained 
}-
F 
finality - Obviously, it could not be reopened by filing a writ 
' 
petition in 1996, more than 45 years after verification of claim, 
and 7 years after categorical refusal to allot land - Writ petitions 
ought to have been rejected on the ground of delay anrl :aches 
- There was no question of rewarding delay on the part of 
G claimant by directing payment of current market value of 1996 
for the undelivered land, contrary to the Rules - Besides, 
orders of single Judge and Division Bench are also bad fof 
vagueness - The single Judge held that as no land was 
available, claimant was not entitled to land but nevertheless 
held that compensation of Rs.383.50 calculated in accordance 
H 
1126 
.. 
1 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. HAR DAYAL 
1127 
with the Rules, amounted to a pittance after all these years and, 
A 
therefore, he should be given the market value of land as on 
the date of writ petition - But different areas of Delhi have 
different market values ...:. In fact, there is no rural agricultural 
land available and no standard market price for agricultural 
land- Value of land is always with reference to a particular land 8 
or a land in a specified area - Government cannot be expected 
to calculate the value of 'land' in 1996 and pay the value as 
compensation - On the facts and circumstances, judgment of 
High Court directing payment of market value as in 1996 
cannot be sustained - Writ petition ought to have been 
dismissed on the ground of delay and /aches - But as single 
C 
Judge and Division Bench of the High Court have exercised 
the discretion to ignore the delay and ent-ertain the writ petition, 
the discretion exercised is not interfered with - As the rules 
contemplated allotment of land being staggered depending 
upon availability of land, during pendency of the appeal, the o 
appellants very fairly offered to allot the respondent's share in 
remaining agricultural land in some rural area in Rajasthan -
Therefore, appellants would deliver claimant's share to the 
extent of 2 std. acres fJnd 8. 11112 units of agricultural land in 
the State of Rajasthan - It is clarified that claimant will have 
no choice in the matter and whatever land is offered in 
E 
Rajasthan, should have to be accepted - If he is not willing to 
accept such land, he may receive the sum of Rs. 383. 50 - Offer 
of land by Government in the instant case, being peculiar to 
the facts of the case, shall not be treated as a precedent in any 
other stale claims of other displaced persons - Displaced F 
Persons (Claims) Act, 1950 -
Displaced Persons 
(Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 - Rehf]bilitation 
of displaced persons. 
S.S. Rathore vs. State of M.P. AIR 1990 SC 10, referred 
to. 
G 
Case Law Reference : 
AIR 1990 SC 10 
referred to 
Para 7 
H 
1128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4185 
of 2006. 
k:' 
From the Judgment & Order dated 31.01.2005 of the High 
Court of Delhi in LPA No. 920 of 2003. 
B 
CVS Rao, Sushma Suri, for the Appellants. 
· Vinay Kumar Garg, Jyoti, for the Respondent. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
ORDER 
... 
R.

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