W.P.(C)/12045/2016 of MAYA DEVI AND ORS Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 12045/2016

MAYA DEVI AND ORS.

..... PetitionersThrough:Mr. S.K. Rout, Advocate with Mr.VikramSinghandMr.AmanMehrotra, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

..... RespondentsThrough:Mr. Bhagwan Swarup Shukla, CGSCwith Mr. Kamaldeep, Advocate.Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate with Mr.Ajay Birbal, Advocate for DDA.Mr. Arjun Pant, Advocate for DDA.Mr. Siddharth Panda, Advocate forLAC/L&B.with Mr. Kamaldeep, Advocate.Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate with Mr.Ajay Birbal, Advocate for DDA.Mr. Arjun Pant, Advocate for DDA.Mr. Siddharth Panda, Advocate forLAC/L&B.

CORAM:

JUSTICE S.MURALIDHARJUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R R%29.01.2019

1. The prayers in this petition read as under:

“i. issue writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ,order or direction thereby directing the respondents to determinethe adequate compensation under section 24(1 )(a) of new act,2013 for the subject land measuring 73 bigha 16 biswa of landcomprised in khasra nos. 629/586/340(00-06), 1004/583/340(00-03) out of 1/2 share, 590/501/340(03-01), 506/465/340(00-06),585/509/340(01-00), 279/1(01-00), 1421/359(14-00), 141(4-16),142(22-08), 176(02-02), 186(01-06), 194(00-06), 604/263(17-12)out of 1/20 share and 1357/399(05-10) out of 16-2/3 biswansishare situated in village Sadhora Khurd, District Central, Delhi tothe share of the petitioners and/or;

OR IN ALTERNATIVE

ii. Issue writ of certiorari and/or any other writ, order ordirectionthereby directingtherespondentstogiveotherequivalent land in the near proximity of the subject iand invillage Sadhora Khurd, District Central, Delhi as an exchange ofthe subject land and/or;

iii. Pass any other or further order which this Hon'ble Court maydeem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that since possession is not withthe Petitioners, the Respondents should, in terms of Section 24 (1) (a) of theRight to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the ‘2013 Act’) pay himcompensation according to the 2013 Act.

3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the DDA on 2[nd]May, 2018, it isstated that the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (‘LAA’) was issued on 27[th]April, 1968 followed by declaration underSection 6 LAA on 19[th]August, 1968.

4. As per the property Register available with the DDA shows, Khasra No.629/586 (Part) area measuring 02 Biswa was acquired through Award No.313/356 dated 17[th]October, 1946 and physical possession of the same washanded over to Delhi Improvement Trust (DIT), predecessor of DDA, by theLand Acquisition Collector/ADM on 18[th]October, 1946 and this was furthertransferred to the PWD for ‘80 feet wide circular road’.

5. As regards the land comprising Khasra No. 585/509 admeasuring 01Bigha and Khasra No. 141 (Part) measuring 03 Biswa, it was acquiredthrough Award No.320/369 and physical possession of the same was handedover to the DIT by the Land Acquisition Collector/ADM on 6[th]June, 1949and further transferred to the PWD on 21[st]October, 1954 for ‘80 feet widecircular road’.

6. Further, it is stated that as regards land in Khasra Nos. 403/142 and 82measuring 20 bigha 19 biswa was taken by DIT in exchange from one ShriSagar Chand Jain in the year 1942. Therefore, according to the DDA, thequestion of payment of any compensation for this land does not arise.

7. No rejoinder has been filed to the counter affidavit filed by the DDA tilldate. The stand of the LAC as stated in the counter affidavit handed over inthe Court today is that pursuant to the notifications under Section 4 issuedon 27[th]April, 1968 and 13[th]November, 1959 followed by the declarationunder Section 6 on 19[th]August, 1968, no Award has till date been passed. Itis accordingly stated that since there is no Award, possession of the aboveland was not taken nor was compensation assessed.

8. It is stated that with possession not being taken, paying compensationunder Section 24 (1) (a) of the 2013 Act does not arise.

9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that he accepts the counteraffidavit of the LAC as far as it states that possession was not taken and hestill insists that there should be declaration for payment of compensation

under Section 24 (1) (a) of the 2013 Act. It is not possible for this Court todirect payment of compensation when, in fact, according to the LAC, nopossession has been taken of land in question and indeed, no Award hasbeen passed in respect of the same.

10. Even if one goes by the affidavit by the DDA, it is prayed that the veryKhasra numbers that the Petitioner is talking of, have been taken over by theDDA more than 70 years ago. So, the question of entertaining the prayer ofthe Petitioner, at this stage, with no explanation for the delay in laches inapproaching the Court, does not arise.

11. No rejoinder has been filed to the counter affidavit of the DDA tocontest the assertions regarding taking over of the possession. In any event,the assertion by the Petitioners that they continued to remain in possessionof the land in question gives rise to disputed question of facts. The factremains that the Petitioners have no explanation to offer for the inordinatedelay in approaching the Court for the relief.

12. On the aspect of laches, in Mahavir v. Union of India (2018) 3 SCC 588the Supreme Court has observed as under:

“23. In the instant case, the claim has been made not only belatedly,but neither the petitioners nor their previous three generations hadever approached any of the authorities in writing for claimingcompensation. No representation had ever been filed with anyauthority, none has been annexed and there is no averment made inthe petition that any such representation had ever been filed. Theclaim appears not only stale and dead but extremely clouded. This weare mentioning as additional reasons, as such claims not only sufferfrom delay and laches but courts are not supposed to entertain suchbut neither the petitioners nor their previous three generations hadever approached any of the authorities in writing for claimingcompensation. No representation had ever been filed with anyauthority, none has been annexed and there is no averment made inthe petition that any such representation had ever been filed. Theclaim appears not only stale and dead but extremely clouded. This weare mentioning as additional reasons, as such claims not only sufferfrom delay and laches but courts are not supposed to entertain such

claims. Besides such claims become doubtful, cannot be received forconsideration being barred due to delay and laches.

24. The High Court has rightly observed that such claims cannot bepermitted to be raised in the court, and cannot be adjudicated as theyare barred. The High Court has rightly observed that such claimscannot be subject matter of inquiry after the lapse of reasonableperiod of time and beneficial provisions of Section 24 of the 2013 Actare not available to such incumbents. In our opinion, Section 24cannot revive those claims that are dead and stale.”

13. The above observations have been followed by this Court in severalorders including the order dated 10[th]December, 2018 in WP(C) No.2734/2015 (Devender Singh v. The Hon’ble Lt. Governor) and similarpetitions have been dismissed on the ground of laches.

14. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed both onthe ground of laches as well as on merits, but in the circumstances, with noorders as to costs.

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

JANUARY 29, 2019

SANJEEV NARULA, J.