Denied after 7 decades: Why Punjab and Haryana High Court refused 50 acres’ reward to man for father’s WWII gallantry

The order, dated March 10, noted that due to the inordinate delay of over seven decades on the part of the petitioner, “the court does not find it appropriate to invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.”

Inordinate delay

• The petitioner was relying upon the policy dated June 6, 1944.
• As per the policy, a soldier who had been awarded the George Medal was entitled to 25 acres of land.
• The petitioner’s father, Gajja Singh, was awarded two George Medals, making him entitled to 50 acres.
• The family members were entitled to land after the death of the awardee.
• Gajja Singh remained alive till 1996 – for almost five decades – but did not lodge his claim for the 50 acres’ reward during his lifetime.
• However, the petitioner, after over seven decades, wants to encash his father’s medals with no explanation for the inordinate delay.

Discretion to condone delay

• No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to when the high court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches. 
• When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. 
• The state cannot deprive vested rights because of a non-deliberate delay. 
• The discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably. In the event that the claim made by the applicant is legally sustainable, delay should be condoned, but where illegality is manifest, it cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches.
• Referring to a Supreme Court precedent, the court, considering the inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner, does not find it appropriate to invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
• The present petition stands dismissed.

Referred precedent

• In Mrinmoy Maity Vs. Chhanda Koley and others (2024), the court held that the high court ought to dismiss the petition on the ground of delay and laches where there is no explanation of delay. 

State’s omission

• Advocate Arvind Kashyap, for the petitioner, argued that his father participated in World War II and was adorned with medals, including two George Medals. 
• Kashyap said that as per the policy in 1944, a soldier awarded the George Medal was entitled to 25 acres of land, and the petitioner’s father was liable to receive 50 acres of land.
• The state did not make an entry of the aforesaid medals, causing him to lose the 50 acres of land. 
• Kashyap reasoned the inordinate delay by submitting that the land was a substantive right which was not granted to the petitioner’s father, thus, the petition is maintainable. 

WWII gallantry

• The petitioner claimed his father had participated in World War II.
• His father was adorned with medals, including two George Medals.
• Instituted by King George VI in 1940, the George Medal is awarded by the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth for gallantry in circumstances where military honours are not deemed appropriate.
• As per policy dated June 6, 1944, of the Adjutant General of India, a soldier who has been awarded the George Medal is entitled to 25 acres of land.