SYED MAQBOOL ALIversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

                         (2011] 4 S.C.R. 238


A                       SYED MAQBOOL ALI
                                  v.
               STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
               (Civil Appeal Nos. 2913-2914 of 2011)

                           APRIL 04, 2011
B
          [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.]

          Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 18 - Acquisition of lands
    for construction of road - Payment of compensation to certain
C   land owners - Appellant's case that his land was taken over
     without acquisition - Writ petition by the appellant almost two
     decades after the dispossession seeking direction for
    acquisition and payment of compensation - Dismissed by the
    High Court holding that the remedy lies u/s. 18 - Held: Not
D   justified - Application seeking reference to court uls. 18 would
    lie only where the land-holder is aggrieved by the award made
    by the Land Acquisition Collector in regard to land acqutred
    under the Act - Application uls. 18 cannot be filed in regard
    to a land which was not acquired at all - Remedy of a land
E   holder whose land is taken without acquisition is either to file
     a civil suit for recovery of possession and/or for
     compensation, or approach the High Court by filing a wfit
    petition, if the action can be shown to be arbitrary, irrational,
     unreasonable, biased, malafide or without the authority of law,
F   and seek a direction that the land should be acquired in a
    manner known to law - When a writ petitioner makes out a
     case for invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article
     226 of the Constitution, the High Court would not relegate him
    to the alternative remedy of a civil court, merely because the
G   matter may involve an incidental examination of disputed
    questions of facts - High Court would see whether the person
    is seeking remedy in a matter which is a civil dispute or the
    matter relates to a dispute having a public law element or
     violation of any fundamental right or to any arbitrary and high-
H                                 238
      SYED MAQBOOL ALI v. STATE OF UTTAR                   239
              PRADESH & ANR.
handed action - Also, belated writ petitions, without proper       A
explanation for the delay, are liable to be dismissed - High
Courts should also be cautious in entertaining such writ
petitions - However, on facts, the High Court did not examine
any of the relevant questions - Writ petition was dismissed
after a pendency for seven years by a short order on a             B
baseless assumption about the existence of a non-existent
alternative remedy - Thus, matter remitted to the High Court
for consideration afresh - Delay/laches - Constitution of India,
1950 - Article 226.

    ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee              C
Corporationof India Ltd 2004(3) SCC 553; Kisan Sahkari
Chini Mills Ltd. v. Vardan Linkers 2008(12) SCC 500 - relied
on.

                      Case Law Reference:                          D
     2004 (3) sec 553          Relied on.            Para 6
     2008 (12) sec 500         Relied on.            Para 6

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.               E
2913-2914 of 2011.

     From the Judgment & Order dated 9.7.2007 of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in W.P. No. 11212 of 2000
and order dated 22.2.2008 in Review Application No. 189319
of 2007 in W.P. No. 11212 of 2000.                                 F
    Tameem Hashmi, Promila for the Appellant.

    Shobha Dikshit, Shalini Kumar, Pardeep Misra for the
Respondents.
                                                                   G
    The Order of the Court was delivered by



                                                                   H
    240       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011] 4 S.C.R.

A                            ORDER
          R. V. RAVEENDRAN J. 1. Leave granted.
       2. Certain lands in village Sarai Badli and lbrahimpur,
  Danda, Pargana Kora, District Fatehpur, UP, were acquired
B for construction of a six Kilometre road from Jahanabad to Garhi
  Jafraganj in the year 1982 and compensation was paid to the
  land owners in the year 1983.
        3. In the year 1996, the appellant submitted a complaint
c to the Lokayukta alleging that his plots (bearing No.87/5, 88,
  90, and 232 in Sarai Badli and plot No.580/5 and 602/1 in
   lbrahimpur Danda) were included in the said acquisition; that
  in 1995 when he got his other lands measured, he found that
  his plots bearing Nos.27, 57, 58, 450, 451 and 452 (new
0 numbers 103, 90, 93/1, 232/2, 231/2 and 229/5) measuring
  0.7068 Hectare had been illegally and unauthorisedly used for
  constructing the road. On enquiry by the Lok Ayukta, the Addi.
  District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) informed that there was
  a possibility of the acquired lands being left out and the road
E being constructed in the adjoining lands which were not
  acquired. On the other hand, the concerned Executive
  Engineer, PWD, informed the Lok Ayukta that the Khasra
  numbers in respect of which the appellant alleged
  encroachment and claimed compensation had never stood in
  his name and that even for the lands acquired in 1982, the
F compensation was paid to Mohammed Hussain alias Bhola
  and others and not to the appellant. The said complaint was
  however closed on 7.9.1999 as time barred, in view of the
  delay of 12 years in seeking relief. Thereafter, the appellant
  approached the High Court in the year 2000 seeking a
G direction to the respondents to pay compensation in regard to
  the extra land used and occupied by respondents by diverting
  the road from its original alignment. The said writ petition was
  dismissed by order dated, 9.7.2007 on the ground that
  petitioner can have recourse to section 18 of the Land
H Acquisition Act, 1894 ('Act' for short), if he wanted enhancement
      SYED MAQBOOL ALI v. STATE OF UTIAR                          241
      PRADESH & ANR. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
of compensation. The review petition filed by the appellant was . A
dismissed on 22.2.2008. The said orders are challenged in
these appeals by special leave.
      4. The respondents deny any encroachment or
unauthorized use. They point out on account of the inordinate             8
delay in approaching the High Court, and the disputes/questions
relating to identity of land, boundaries, title etc., the writ petition
was not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
      5. The limited question that arises for our consideration is
whether the High Court could have dismissed a writ petition C
seeking a direction to acquire the land and pay compensation
(on the ground that his land has been taken over without
acquisition) by holding that the remedy lies under Section 18
of the Act. An application seeking reference to court under
Section 18 of the Act would lie only where the land-holder is D
aggrieved by the award made by the Land Acquisition
Collector in regard to land acquired under the provisions of the
Act, either with reference to quantum of compensation, or the
measurements of the land, or the persons shown as being
entitled to compensation. An application under section 18 of e
the Act cannot be filed in regard to a land which was not
acquired at all. The remedy of a land holder whose land is taken
without acquisition is either to file a civil suit for recovery of
possession and/or for compensation, or approach the High
Court by filing a writ petition if the action can be shown to be F
arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable, biased, malafide or without
the authority of law, and seek a direction that the land should
be acquired in a manner known to law. The appellant has
chosen to follow the second course. The High Court was not
therefore, justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground G
that the remedy was under section 18 of the Act. The order of
the High Court, which is virtually a non-speaking order,
apparently proceeded on the basis that appellant was seeking
increase in compensati~n for an acquired land. The matter
                                                                          H

                                                      •
   242       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 4 S.C.R.

A therefore requires to be reconsidered by the High Court, on
  merits.

        6. But that does not mean that the delay should be ignored
  or appellant should be given relief. In such matters, the person
B aggrieved should approach the High Court,diligently. If the writ
  petition is belated, unless there is good and satisfactory
  explanation for the delay, the petition will be rejected on the
  ground of delay and laches. Further the High Court should be
  satisfied that the case warrants the exercise of the extra-
C ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of the
  India, and that the matter is one where the alternative remedy
  of suit is not appropriate. For example, if the person aggrieved
  and the State are owners of adjoining lands and he claims that
  the State has encroached over a part of his land, or if there is
  a simple boundary dispute, the remedy will lie only in a civil suit,
D as the dispute does not relate to any highhanded, arbitrary or
  unreasonable action of the officers of the State and there is a
  need to examine disputed questions relating to title, extent and
  actual possession. But where the person aggrieved establishes
  that the State had highhandedly taken over his land without
E recourse to acquisition or deprived him of his property without
  authority of law, the landholder may seek his remedy in a writ
  petition. When a writ petitioner makes out a case for invoking
  the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
  Constitution, the High Court would not relegate him to the
F alternative remedy of a civil court, merely because the matter
  may involve an incidental examination of disputed questions of
  facts. The question that will ultimately weigh with the High Court
  is this : Whether the person is seeking remedy in a matter which
  ls primarily a civil dispute to be decided by a civil court, or
G whether the matter relates to a dispute having a public law
  element or violation of any fundamental right or to any arbitrary
  and high-handed action. (See the decisions of this court in ABL
  International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of
  India Ltd - 2004(3) SCC 553 and Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills
H Ltd. v. Vardan Linkers - 2008(12) SCC 500].
       SYED MAQBOOL ALI v. STATE OF UTTAR                     243
       PRADESH & ANR. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
     7. High Courts should also be cautious in entertaining writ      A
petitions filed decades after the dispossession, seeking
directions for acquisition and payment of compensation. It is
not uncommon for villagers to offer/donate some part of their
lands voluntarily for a public purpose which would benefit them
or the community - as for example, construction of an access          B
road to the village or their property, or construction of a village
tank or a bund to prevent flooding/erosion. When they offer their
land for such public purpose, the land would be of little or
negligible value. But decades later, when land values increase,
either on account of passage of time or on account of                 c
developments or improvements carried out by the State, the
land holders come up with belated claims alleging that their
lands were taken without acquisition and without their consent.
When such claims are made after several decades, the State
would be at a disadvantage to contest the claim, as it may not
                                                                      0
have the records to show in what circumstances the lands were
given/donated and whether the land was given voluntarily.
Therefore, belated writ petitions, without proper explanation for
the delay, are liable to be dismissed. Be that as it may.
    8. The High Court has not examined any of the relevant            E
questions. The High Court has dismissed the writ petition, after
a pendency for seven years, by a short order on a baseless
assumption about the existence of a non-existent alternative
remedy.
                                                                      F
     9. We therefore allow these appeals, set aside the orders
of the High Court and remit the matter to the High Court for
fresh consideration and disposal of the writ petition in
accordance with law. Nothing stated above shall be construed
as expression of any opinion on the merits of the matter. It is       G
open to the State to contest the matter on all ground available
to it.
N.J.                                           Appeals allowed.