Petitioner cannot be granted liberty of waking up after period of more than three decades so as to seek parity: P&H HC

Read Order: Bishan Chand vs. State of Punjab and another 

Tulip Kanth

Chandigarh, September 30, 2021: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition, which was filed seeking parity of treatment and for direction issued by this Court in S.Bachitter Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others to be applied to him as well.

In the case of S.Bachitter Singh(supra), the land comprising the petitioners’ residential plots was acquired by the State Government following certain notifications issued under Sections 4 & 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The subject land was acquired “for setting up of residential Urban Estate in the area of revenue estate of tehsil and district Ludhiana”.

Earlier, on a previous date of hearing i.e. August 20,2021, the assertion made by counsel had been recorded that the Greater Ludhiana Area Development Authority (GLADA) had filed an affidavit before this court in certain other proceedings that the directions issued by the Division Bench in the judgment dated October 7,2013 in S.Bachitter Singh’s case (supra) as also other connected petitions would be applied across the board and such benefit would not be confined to the petitioners therein.

The matter was adjourned on request made by counsel to place on record a copy of such affidavit filed by GLADA. It had further been made clear on August 20 itself that if such assertion was found to be factually incorrect, the writ petition would be dismissed in limine. 

Now, when the hearing resumed counsel conceded that no such affidavit had been filed by GLADA. 

The Division Bench of Justice Tejinder Singh Dhindsa and Justice Vivek Puri opined that this was a matter which involved inordinate and unexplained delay. The judgment in S.Bachitter Singh’s case (supra) passed by the Division Bench of this Court was pursuant to a writ petition that had been filed by the petitioners therein in the year 1987.

Dismissing the Petition, the Bench clarified that the petitioner herein cannot be granted the liberty and luxury of waking up after a period of more than three decades so as to seek parity.