ABDUL RASHID Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE seminal question, which arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether departing into hibernation for almost quarter of a century is to be exonerated on the ground of mercy basing on the principle that justice must be accompanied by compassion as well as mercy and 'thou shall not ration justice'. There cannot be denial of the aforesaid propositions which have infused life spark into the justice delivery system. The Courts are required to deal with a litigation with a sense of compassion so that justice is not denied to those who knock at its doors and the concept of mercy is not ostracized on technical or gossamer substratum but, a significant and eloquent one, whether a writ Court should entertain a grievance by the legal heirs, who have waken up from slumber after two decades and two years seeking alleviation of the grievance which they have chosen to keep close to the their breasts as if they are sacred secrets, and asserts their rights at their convenience. Rights they may have, but should this Court entertain a writ petition of this nature in exercise of its extraordinary and inherent jurisdiction to address to it and not reject it on the ground of delay and laches.

(2.) THE facts as have been adumbrated are that the predecessor -in -interest of the petitioner late Ustad Gulam Mohammad was owner of the land bearing Khasra No. 115 admeasuring area 5.34 acres and Khasra No. 116 admeasuring area 0.96 acre situate in village Betla, Tehsil and District Jabalpur. Said Gulam Mohammad sold 1.99 acres of land to Ravindra Co -operative Housing Society on 5 -2 -1963. Thus, he was left with 3.55 acres of land. Under the provisions of M.P. Town Improvement Trust Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the Town Improvement Trust came into existence in the city of Jabalpur and the said trust framed scheme No. 3 under the Act. The said scheme included several acres of land located in village Gohalpur and Betla to be acquired under the provisions of the Act. The said notification was published in M.P. Gazette dated 26 -1 -1968 vide Annexure P -2. It is further set forth in the petition that Trust gave an offer to Gulam Mohammad by offering him a sum of rupees 7,583.67/ - towards compensation. The said offer was not accepted by the land owner as a consequence of which the Town Improvement Trust made a reference to the Joint Tribunal constituted under the Act for adjudication of the claims of many including that of the father of the petitioners. The Joint Tribunal considered all such references and passed a common award on 29 -4 - 1978 as contained in Annexure P -7. It is alleged a fraud was committed by the Town Improvement Trust as a result of which it got reflected in the order of the Tribunal that Gulam Mohammad had entered into a compromise though as an actual fact no compromise was ever entered into. It is putforth that not a single penny was paid to the Ustad Gulam Mohammad and nothing has been paid to the petitioners.

(3.) A return has been filed by the respondent 2, the Authority, contending, inter alia, that erstwhile Town Improvement Trust acquired the land in question under Section 71 of the Act -and the claim of the land owner Ustad Gulam Mohammad was not determined by the Joint Tribunal as the controversy had already been settled by way of compromise. It is put forth in the return that the claim advanced by the petitioner is devoid of substance inasmuch as the compensation with regard to land in question have been paid fully and finally to the persons who are legally entitled to receive the same. Averments have been made to highlight that the award passed by the Joint Tribunal has been honoured by the respondent Authority in the year 1981 in favour of the awardees. It is also the case of the Authority that before the acquisition of the land in question the predecessor -in -interest of the petitioners had alienated a parcel of the land to other persons and hence, he was not entitled to compensation. In the additional objection it has been urged that the land in question was acquired in the year 1968 and claim for compensation if any accrued to the land owners in the year 1968 itself and hence, writ petition being instituted in the year 1999 should not be entered on the ground of inordinate delay and laches.