Holding

The claimant's excessive delay and laches bar any entitlement to land allotment, and compensation is limited to the cash amount fixed by the Rules; however, the government may satisfy the claim by offering land in Rajasthan.

Summary

Har Dayal, Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family of displaced persons from Pakistan, filed a claim in 1950 for agricultural land as compensation under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. After partial allotment, the remaining land was not available and in 1989 he was credited cash compensation of Rs.383.50 per person. He did not challenge this order and only in 1996 filed a writ petition seeking the balance land. The Delhi High Court allowed the petition in part and directed payment of the market value of the land as of 1996. The Supreme Court held that the 30‑plus year delay and laches barred the claim, that the Rules limit compensation to a fixed cash amount, and that the High Court’s order was vague. While not interfering with the High Court’s discretion, the Court ordered the government to allot the remaining 2 Standard Acres and 8.11/12 units of agricultural land in Rajasthan, or pay Rs.383.50 if the land is refused.

Issues considered

Whether the claimant's delay of over 30 years and laches preclude relief under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954.
Whether the court can direct payment of market value of land instead of the cash compensation prescribed by the Rules.
Whether the High Court's order is void for vagueness.
Whether the government has a duty to provide land or evict encroachers when agricultural land is unavailable.

Legislation cited

Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954

Subjects

Displaced personsCompensationRehabilitationLand allotmentLimitationLachesWrit petitionSupreme CourtDelhi High CourtAgricultural landCash compensationMarket value

Judgment

[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
land, they were entitled only to cash equivalent of
E 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
claimant by directing payment of current market value of 1996
G
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
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
1 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.
CVS Rao, Sushma Suri, for the Appellants.
B
· Vinay Kumar Garg, Jyoti, for the Respondent.
The Order of the Court was delivered by
ORDER ...
..l
R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J. 1. The respondent claims to be
c the Karta of the 'HUF of Tek Chand' consisting of himself and
his two brothers (Harichand and Lachhman Das). Respondent's
family migrated from Pakistan to India in 1947. Respondent and
his two brothers filed claims before the competent authority on
22.9.1950, as refugees/displaced persons seeking allotment of
D land as compensation in lieu of their lands in Pakistan. Their
'-1
claim was verified and registered for 7 Standard Acres and 3.1/ "<(

4 Units vide order dated 5.11.1952 by the Claims Officer, Delhi,
under the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act, 1950. Towards
partial satisfaction of the said verified claim, initially 5 Standard
E Acres and 4.1/3 Units situated in Bawana, Delhi was allotted and
delivered to them. The question of allotment of remaining land
was pending for several years and in the year 1965 the Office of .
the Regional Settlement Commissioner informed the Land
~
Allotment Officer that after taking note of the land that was
\
F already allotted in partial satisfaction, the balance agricultural
land allotted to them (respondent and his two brothers)was only
2 Standard Acres and 8.11/12 Units.
2. The respondent claims that he was thereaner pursuing
his request for allotment of the remaininy land, on behalf of
G himself and his two brothers as Kartha of HUF. It is stated that
the file was not traceable for some years in the concerned Ministry
and subsequently the file was traced and transferred to the Land
and Building Department. Ultimately by orders dated 12.9.1989
".
and 21.9.1989, the respondent arid his two brothers were
H
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. HAR DAYAL 1129
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
categorically informed by the Ministry of Home Affairs A
(Rehabilitation Division-Settlements) that no agricultural land
was available in the rural areas of Delhi for allotment, and
Rs.383.50 being the compensation payable to each of them,
corresponding to the extent which was not allotted, was credited
to their account in terms of the relevant rules. Even after the B
receipt of the said communication the respondent and his
brothers did not take any legal action. In the year 1994, the
respondent obtained a letter of recommendation from a Central
Minister and tried _to revive the stale issue. The representation
was again rejected. It is thereafter, in the year 1996, that the c
respondent filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court seeking
allotment of the land.
3. A learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ
petition in part with costs of Rs.5000/- on 16.5.2003. The learned
Single Judge was of the view that after all these years it was not D
possible to issue any direction for allotment of agricultural land
to the respondent as such land was not available. He was,
however, of the view that the appellants, due to their
carelessness, had deprived the respondent of the allotment of
the land. Therefore he directed the appellants to work out the E
market value of the extent of land to which respondent was
entitled as on the date of the filing of the writ petition in 1996 and
make payment within two months. The appeal filed by the Union
of India was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court
on 31.1.2005. The said order is challenged in this appeal by F
special leave.
4. The claim of respondent and his brothers for
compensation by way of agricultural land was verified and
certified as 7 Standard Acres and 3.1/4 units in 1952. Depending
on the availability, 5 Standard Acres and 4.1 /3 units of land was G
allotted and delivered to them. In 1965, it was confirmed that as
per the verified claim, the respondent and his brothers were still •
entitled to 2 Standard Acres and 8.11/12 Units. As per the rules,
though normally compensation was payable in terms of rural
agricultural land from the compensation pool c~eated with H
1130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A evacuee lands, cash compensation was payable in the event of
non-availability of rural agricultural land. The cash compensation 1<'.
payable under the Rules was Rs.450/- per standard acre and
nothing more. It is in these circumstances, due to non-availability
of agricultural land, he and his brothers were informed that cash
B equivalent of compensation, that is Rs.383.50 each was credited
to them and they could draw the same.
5. The respondent chose to approach the High Court only
in 1996 seeking allotment of the remaining land. He contends .......,
that under the provisions of the Displaced Persons _.__
c (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, the central
government had to take necessary steps for the custody,
management and disposal of the lands in the compensation pool
and make it available to the displaced persons; that he could not
be denied allotment of the balance land as per the verified claim,
D on the ground that the evacuee lands were encroached; that as
he had settled down in Delhi, under the Rules there was a duty
--;£"'
cast on the appellants to allot land in the neighbourhood of Delhi;
and that if the evacuee lands are not available on account of
encroachment, it is the duty of Central Government to evict the
E encroachers and give him the land as per the entitlement
6. On the other hand, ~he appellants pointed out that the
respondent was claiming allotment in pursuance of a claim
verified as long back as 22.9.1950; that he had not pursued the
matter for one reason or the other since the year 1965 when the r-;
F Settlement Commissioner certified that the respondent and his <..
brothers were still entitled to the balance of 2 Standard Acres·
and 8.11 /2 Units; that from 1965 to 1989, the respondent did not
take any legal action; that in 1989, the respondent was informed
that he was only entitled to compensation as provided under the
G Act and the Rules as no land was available; that everfafter such
.
categorical rejection he did not approach the court and in the
circumstances, the writ petition filed in the year 1996, was llpble
to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. It is submitted
that having slept over his rights for over 40 years, the respondent
can not belatedly demand that the encroachers should be
H
UNION OF !NOIA & ORS. v. HAR DAYAL 1131
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
removed and the land should be made available. It was A
submitted that the Act and Rules contemplated payment of
compensation to displaced persons, usually in the form of
allotment of agricultural land situated in a rural area, but where
land was not available, the rules contemplated payment of
compensation as provided in the Rules (at the rate of Rs.450/- B
per acre) and under no circumstances, the respondent could
claim anything more.
..... 7. The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench have
,.). totally ignored the enormous delay of more than 30 years on the
part of the respondent in approaching the Court. This Court has c
repeatedly held that merely giving representation will neither
extend the limitation nor wipe out the delay and !aches. [See :
S.S. Rathore vs. State of MP- AIR 1990 SC 10]. Further the
respondent and his brothers were categorically informed in
September, 1989 that due to non-availability of agricultural land, D
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.
Respondent could have challenged that order on the ground that
he was entitled to land and not cash. But he did not do so. The E
refusal to allot the balance land whether right or wrong, attained
finality. Obviously, it could not be reopened by filing a writ petition
in 1996, more than 45 years after the verification of the claim,
-4 and 7 years after categorical refusal to allot land. The writ
,> petitions ought to have been rejected on the ground of delay and
F
!aches. There was no question of rewarding the delay on the part
of respondent, by directing payment of current market value of
1996 for the undelivered land, contrary to the Rules.
8. The orders of the learned Single Judge and Division
Bench are also bad for vagueness. The learned Single Judge G
held that as no land was available the respondent was not entitled
to land but nevertheless held that the compensation of Rs.383.50
'(
calculated in accordance with the Rules, amounted to a pittance
after all these years and therefore he should be given the market
value of the land as on the date of the writ petition. But different H
1132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
I

A areas of Delhi have different market values. In fact, there is no -
rural agricultural land available and no standard market price for
.0
agricultural land. The value of land is always with reference to a
particular land or a land in a specified area. We fail to understand
how the appellants can be expected to calculate the value of the
B 'land' in 1996 and pay him the value as compensation.
9. On the facts and circumstances, the judgment of the High
Court directing payment of the market value as in 1996 cannot
-
be sustained. The writ petition ought to have been dismissed on
the ground of delay and laches.
J.
c 10. But as the High Court (learned Single Judge ·an~
~

Division Bench) have chosen to exercise the discretion to ignore
the delay and entertain the writ petition, we do not propose to
interfere with the exercise of discretion. As the rules
contemplated allotment of land being staggered depending
D upon availability of land, during the pend ency of this <;ippeal, the
appellants very fairly offered to allot the respondent's share in y
'-.
remaining agricultural land in some rural area in Rajasthan. This
has been referred to in the orders of this Court dated 5.8.2005, ...
31.7.2008 and 22.10.2009. We therefore dispose of the appeal
E recording the submission that appellants will deliver the
respondent's share in the extent of 2 Std. Acres and 8.11/12
Units of agricultural land in the State of Rajasthan to appellant
within six months from today. It is clarified that appellant will have
no choice in the matter and whatever land is offered in Rajasthan,
~
F should have to be accepted. If ·he is not willing to accept such ~
land, he may receive the sum of Rs.383.50.
.
11. The offer of land by appellant in this case, being peculiar '
to the facts of this case shall not be treated as a precedent in
any other stale claims of other displaced persons.
G
R.P. Appeal disposed of.