CHUHRU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the entire proceedings taken by the respondents for acquiring his land including the award purported to have been made in respect of it.

(2.) THE petitioner owns one -half of Khasra No. 1670 measuring 3 Kanals and 7 Marlas and Khasra No. 1670/1 measuring 2 Kanals and 2 Marlas situate in Kishtwar. His allegation is that he obtained no information or notice of any of the proceedings relating to the acquisition of his land and that it was only in January 1960, that he came to know that such proceedings had been taken in respect of his land. Thereupon he set about to obtain copies of the proceedings and after, arming himself with them moved this Court for a writ. The respondents have raised several objections. On facts their main stand is that the petitioner had knowledge of the land acquisition proceedings early enough to enable him to appear before the Collector and to prefer his objections, if any. The legal objections are, firstly, as the land acquisition proceedings terminated much before the coming into force of the State Constitution, the petitioner could not ask for a writ under section 103 of that Constitution and secondly, that as the application for writ is filed several years after the commencement of the land acquisition proceedings, it is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.

(3.) I shall first deal with the question of delay which was strenuously relied upon by the learned Advocate General for the respondents. The averments in the petitioners affidavit it that he came to know of the land acquisition proceedings only in January 1960 and thereafter he tried to obtain copies of the relevant papers and came to this Court in April 1960. If these averments are true - I have no reason to hold they are otherwise I do not think there is substance in the respondents objection raised on the ground of delay. Further, in a matter of such a serious nature as this where the property of a person is taken away in disregard to the provisions of law, the Court should be very reluctant to reject his petition on the mere ground of delay.