09 May 2025 Civil Writ Petition >> Civil & Consumer Law  

The Bombay High Court recently dismissed a writ petition seeking the allotment of land under the Displaced Persons (Rehabilitation and Compensation) Act, 1954, citing an inordinate delay of 56 years in filing the petition. The case, Chandru Mirchandani v/s The Settlement Commissioner For Compensation Pool Property Cum Custodian of Evacuee Property & Others (Writ Petition No. 11331 of 2024), was decided on May 9, 2025, by the Honourable Mr. Justice G.S. Kulkarni and the Honourable Mr. Justice Advait M. Sethna.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Chandru Mirchandani, sought directions to the respondents to allot land equivalent to the area allotted to his father in 1969 from the compensation pool of evacuee properties. The petitioner's father had left lands in Pakistan during the partition and was thus entitled to land allotment under the Displaced Persons Act. His claim was verified at Rs. 21,878, equivalent to 91-12 Local Acres.

In 1968, the petitioner's father was allegedly allotted land bearing Survey No. 100, admeasuring approximately 32.26 Local Acres, at Village Khandala, Taluka Bhokardan, District Jalna ("Bhokardan Land"). However, the petitioner contended that his father was never put in possession of this land. The petitioner's father passed away on December 21, 1972.

The petitioner first raised the issue in 2013 by writing to the Tahsildar, Bhokardan, requesting possession of the land. Further letters were sent in 2021 and 2023 to various authorities, including the Tahsildar, Collector, Settlement Commissioner, CIDCO, and the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra. The petitioner claimed that recent searches revealed the Bhokardan land was not an evacuee property and belonged to a third party. Therefore, the petitioner sought an alternate land allotment in the vicinity of Mumbai from available evacuee properties, including those acquired for the New Bombay project or the New Bombay International Airport.

Respondents' Arguments

Mr. Pabale, the Assistant Government Pleader representing the respondents, primarily argued for the dismissal of the petition on the grounds of inordinate delay and laches. He highlighted that the alleged allotment order was from 1968, and the petitioner was asserting rights after a lapse of 56 years. The respondents also stated that the 1968 allotment order was not available in government records, and its genuineness needed verification from the Central Government, which had the power of land allotment to displaced persons until 1971. The Central Government was not impleaded as a party respondent in the petition.

Furthermore, Mr. Pabale submitted that the Displaced Persons Act was repealed in 2005, and while pending cases prior to the repeal were to be considered on their merits as per a Supreme Court interim order, no proceedings concerning the petitioner's father's alleged allotment were shown to be pending at the time of the repeal.

Court's Observations and Decision

The High Court concurred with the respondents, emphasizing the significant delay. The Court noted that the petitioner's father, the alleged beneficiary, passed away in 1972 and there was no evidence he asserted his rights during his lifetime. The petitioner only began raising the cause in 2013, 41 years after his father's death, and with another substantial delay of seven years before the next representation in 2021.

The bench stated that mere letters or representations after such a long period do not create a vested legal right, especially when the original cause of action, if any, accrued in 1968. The Court found that the petition, filed in 2024, was an attempt to "resurrect a dead cause of action" and amounted to an abuse of the process of law.

The High Court relied on several precedents, including its own decision in Tatoba Rama Chavan vs. Collector, Kolhapur District, Kolhapur And Others, which emphasized that courts should not reopen "dead cases" and that belated claims are an abuse of the process of law. The Court also cited Abhay Kinwasara Vs. State of Maharashtra, where a challenge to a land acquisition after 38 years was rejected due to delay and laches.

The Court reiterated the principle that "a right not exercised for a long time is non-existent" and that "inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant." The judgment highlighted that if a party sleeps over their rights for decades without justifiable explanation, they cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Regarding the availability of land, the Court noted that CIDCO, as a Special Planning Authority, holds all such lands, and therefore no land was available. Moreover, the Court found that the petitioner had not established a basic entitlement for alternate land, as a certificate of a live claim from the Central Government, the appropriate authority at the time of alleged allotment, was lacking. The Court also considered the possibility that the petitioner's father might have accepted compensation in another form, which would be impossible to verify after 56 years.

In conclusion, the Bombay High Court dismissed the petition, finding it barred by inordinate delay and laches and deeming it a clear case of the petitioner taking a chance with litigation. 

DISPLACED PERSONS (DEBTS ADJUSTMENT) ACT, 1951