AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1975 (4) TMI 134
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hment of a socialistic welfare State committed to the rule of law, some Government agencies continue to have a bureaucratic outlook, and their conscience is not pricked by mercilessly trampling over the legal rights of the citizens and then trying to outwit them by defenceless defences. ( 2. ) Possession of the land belonging to the appellant was taken over by the Punjab Government through the Engineer of the Aerodrome at Patiala in 1935 for State purposes. Proceedings for determining compensation payable for the acquisition of land were started, but some years later the file relating to those proceedings was lost in the Government's office. The appellant thereafter went on representing to the Government to determine and pay the comp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with the acquisition of the land in question according to the provisions of law, and to pay due compensation for the same to the appellant or in the alternative to restore possession of the land in question to the appellant along with damages for use and occupation thereof for the entire period during which the appellant has been deprived of the same. ( 3. ) At the hearing of the writ petition, an objection was raised which was noticed in the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the following words :-- "Mr. Rampal, learned counsel for the State contends that complicated questions of fact necessitating the examination of witnesses and an elaborate investigation arise in this case. It is added that such questions cannot be pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en disclosed in the application. Assuming that no certified copy was obtained by the appellant, this appeal could have been filed within limitation by February 26, 1972. February 27, 28 and 29, 1972, were admittedly holidays, and the Court was closed on those days. The appeal was actually filed on 1-3-1972, by Mr. I. B. Bhandari, Advocate, who was at that time a rank junior in the profession. It appears from the application filed by him under his own signature that he did not distinguish between a month of 31 days and a month of 30 days in calculating the period of limitation for filing the appeal, and thinking that one month and not thirty days was the prescribed period of limitation and the appeal could be filed on February 27, 1972 (the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issed does not, therefore, appear to bold much water. Mr. Brar has then contended on the authroity of the Full Bench in lagdish Mitter's case (AIR 1969 Punj & Har 441) (supra) that the question of limitation for allowing the claim of the appellant would come in. Learned counsel for the State appears to be thinking that this is a suit for payment of money. The appellant is not claiming any money in the present proceedings, but has merely come to the Court for compelling the Governmental authorities to do the duty enjoined on them by law. For the issuance of a writ of mandamus in a case of this type there is no period of limitation prescribed by the Limitation Act. Question of delay in approaching the Court can certainly be one of the val....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no lower norms of jurisprudence. ( 7. ) When the possession of the appellant's land was taken over in 1935 the rights of the appellant were secured by Section 299 (1) of the Government of India Act, 1935, which stated :- "299 (1) No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law." If the appellant's land had not been lawfully acquired, she was and is entitled to restoration of the possession of the land. But the fact that proceedings for determination of compensation started and went on for some time does tend to show that the acquisition was lawful. The loss of the original acquisition file accounts for non-availability of the notifications relating to the acquisition. But the choice still lies with the Gover....