W.P.(C)/1254/2018 of SMT. SANTOSH DEVI AND ORS. Vs THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ORS.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 1254/2018

SANTOSH DEVI & ORS. ... Petitioners Through: Mr. Yashvir Kumar, Advocate

versus

THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS. ... Respondents

Through: Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi,ASC with Mr. Sidharth Agarwal for GNCTD.

Mr. Ashim Shridharfor DDA Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel and Ms. Jyoti Tyagi for L&B/LAC

CORAM:

JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA

30.04.2019

1. The prayers in the petition read as under:

“a) Issue writ in the nature of certiorari/order or direction(s) quashing the notifications under Section 4 and 6 dated 23[rd]January, 1965 and December, 1966 respectively and Award N0.80E/70-71 (supp.) dated 09[th] January, 1981 under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 qua the share of the petitioners in land detailed in the paragraph N0.4 of the petition being 4 Bighas 10 Biswa to the extent of 1/4[th]share in Khasra No.2528/1229 min; 8 Bigha 01 Biswa to the extent of 1/4[th]share in Khasra No.2528/1229 min; 6 bigha 10 Biswa to the extent of 1/4[th] share in the Khasra No. 1223; and 1 Bigha to the extent of V2 share in the Khasra No.2534/1174/1 in the Village Mehrauli.

b) Issue writ of mandamus/ in the nature of mandamus or any

other or further suitable directions to the Respondents to hand over the aforesaid land to the petitioners pursuant to the representation dated 30.08.2017 and make consequential changes in the revenue records;

c) Pass any other order/direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the ”case.

2. The narration in the petition reveals that notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 („LAA‟) was issued on 23[rd]January 1965, followed by declaration under Section 6 of the LAA on 7[th] December 1966. The impugned Award No. 80E/70-71was passed on 9[th] January 1971. There is no explanation in the petition for the inordinate delay in approaching the Court for relief.

3. It is stated in the Petition that the father-in-law of the Petitioner was the recorded owner of the subject land. It is further stated that no compensation has been paid with respect to the acquisition proceedings and the possession of the lands has also been taken. It is stated that some other co-sharers of the subject-land preferred W.P. (C) 6587/2014 titled Khazani. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi seeking to quash the acquisition proceedings while relying on the judgment in W.P. (C) 2759/20174 titled Girish Chabhra v. Lt. Govt. of Delhi. In the said judgment the prayer was acceded to and the acquisition proceedings were dismissed. The LAC went in appeal to the Supreme Court in CA No. 8495/2016 which was dismissed while granting the LAC one year‟s time to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings.

4. Thereafter, the petitioners made representation dated 30[th] August 2017 to the respondents seeking to handover the peaceful possession

W.P.(C) 1254/2018 Page 2 of 5

of the subject lands as per their share in lieu of the directions issued by the Supreme Court vide judgment dated 31[st] August 2016. The Petitioners did not receive any response whatsoever from the Respondents.

5. In the counter-affidavit filed by the DDA, it is submitted that the petition is barred by delay and laches. It is submitted that the Award No. 80-E/70-71 has attained finality. It is further submitted that as per the land records, the land bearing Khasra Nos. 2528/1229 and 2534/1174/1 was acquired by the LAC on 23[rd] September 1981 and handed over to the DDA. On the aspect of compensation it is submitted that compensation amounting to Rs. 31,79,330.25 was sent to the LAC on 5[th] November 1980.

6. In any event, the assertion by the Petitioners that they have not received compensation with respect to the land in question gives rise to disputed question of facts. The fact further remains that the Petitioners have no explanation to offer for the inordinate delay in approaching the Court for the relief.

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

“23. In the instant case, the claim has been made not onlybelatedly, but neither the petitioners nor their previous three generations had ever approached any of the authorities in writing for claiming compensation. No representation had ever been filed with any authority, none has been annexed and there is no averment made in the petition that any such representation had ever been filed. The claim appears not only stale and dead but extremely clouded. This we are mentioning as additional reasons, as such claims not only suffer from delay and laches

W.P.(C) 1254/2018 Page 3 of 5

but courts are not supposed to entertain such claims. Besides such claims become doubtful, cannot be received for consideration being barred due to delay and laches.

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

8. The above observations have been reiterated in the judgment of the three Judge Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (2018) 3 SCC 412 where it was observed as under:

“130. We are of the view that stale or dead claims cannot be the subject-matter of judicial probing under section 24 of the Act of2013. The provisions of section 24 do not invalidate those judgment/orders of the courts where under rights/claims have been lost/negatived, neither do they revive those rights which have become barred, either due to inaction or otherwise by operation of law. Fraudulent and stale claims are not at all to be raised under the guise of section 24. Misuse of provisions of section 24(2) cannot be permitted. Protection by the courts in cases of such blatant misuse of the provisions of law could never have been the intention behind enacting the provisions of section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act; and, by the decision laid down in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra), and this Court never, even for moment, intended that such cases would be received or entertained by the courts.”

9. It may be noted here that the reference made by Constitution

Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Shyam Verma (2018) 4 SCC 405 regarding the correctness of the aforesaid decision in Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (supra) is only as regards the

W.P.(C) 1254/2018 Page 4 of 5

extent to which it differs from the earlier view of the Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki(supra) regarding the tendering of compensation, and on certain other issues but not on the question of petitions seeking declaration under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act being barred by laches. This legal position was explained by this Court recently in Mool Chand v. Union of India 2019 (173) DRJ 595 DB.

10. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed both on the ground of laches as well as on merits, but in the circumstances, with no orders as to costs.

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

APRIL 30, 2019

I.S. MEHTA, J.

W.P.(C) 1254/2018 Page 5 of 5