[27 Yrs Delay] Law Assists Those Who Are Vigilant With Their Rights & Not Those Who Sleep Thereupon: Meghalaya High Court

The observation came from Justice W. Diengdoh:

"The maxim "Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt" which means that the law assists those who are vigilant with their rights and not those that sleep thereupon is very much applicable to the case of the petitioner as regard the approach to the authority with the representation for re-survey and re-measurement of the land acquired considering the fact that there is a gap of almost 27(twenty-seven) years from the year of acquisition which is 1983 to the year 2010 when the first representation was made."

The petitioner approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking re-survey of the land which was acquired by the respondent authorities for establishing Williamnagar Township. The petitioner referred to an agreement entered by the Government with the six Nokmas as indicated in the agreement, however the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, (L) Gosin Marak was not included in the said agreement dated 08.01.1972.

Petitioner submitted that since there is no proper demarcation nor was any boundary walls erected to differentiate the total land acquired by the Government, therefore, the respondent authorities may be directed to cause inspection of the same and to erect a boundary wall after proper measurement, so as to avoid any dispute on complaint of encroachment, etc.

The Government Advocate on behalf of the respondents has submitted the petition is barred by the principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence and also of delay and laches for an acquisition proceeding which was concluded in the year 1983, the petitioner had approached the Court only in the year 2017.

The Court was also informed that at the time when the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued, the petitioner along with others were given every opportunity to file their objection, but has failed to do so.

The Court agreed with the respondent that the petitioner only on whim and fancy thought it fit to seek re-measurement and re-survey of the land and that too realizing it only in the year 2010, when the first representation in this regard was made. Court said that the argument of the respondent that the principle of delay and laches is attracted in this case has substance.

"This Court having come to the conclusion that the case of the petitioner cannot stand on the ground that the principle of delay and laches is attracted and the same having been decided, accordingly, the argument of the respondents on the issue of res judicata need not necessarily be discussed and the authority cited in this regard may not be elaborated," Court said

Accordingly petition was dismissed for being devoid of merit.

Case Title : Smti Dehila D. Sangma Vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 36 

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment