ZAKIR UR RAHMAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners' forefathers land was acquired under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , in 1955, but, no compensation was paid to their forefathers and therefore, present petition has been preferred in the year 2008, It is also submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that they obtained information under the Right to Information Act about acquisition of the property belonging to the forefathers of the petitioners and as the compensation has not been paid in the year 1955, the present writ petition has been preferred in the year 2008.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that false and frivolous petition has been preferred by the petitioners. Compensation was already paid at the relevant time as per letter Annexure -5 to the Interlocutory Application No. 1030 of 2009 in W.P. (C) No. 4296 of 2008. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that as per the letter at Annexure -5 to the Interlocutory Application, amount of compensation of Rs. 10,813/ - was paid by cheque bearing No. 024479 dated 31st March, 1951 to Khan Bahadur Habibur Rahman and the petitioners are claiming their rights as legal heirs of Khan Bahadur Habibur Rahman. It is also vehemently submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the petition has been preferred after approximately fifty years i.e. after half a century. Possession is already taken away by the Government in the year 1955 or prior thereto and therefore, the petitioners were very well aware about the land acquisition. Petitioners are not cultivating the land. In these sets of circumstances, there is gross and unexplained delay of 53 years in preferring this writ petition. In these circumstances, the petition may not be entertained by this Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) AS a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, there is no substance in this writ petition. Hence, it is hereby dismissed. Interlocutory Application No. 1030 of 2009 stands disposed of, in view of the final order passed in the writ petition.