W.P.(C)/1263/2016 of RAJEEV KUMAR AND ORS Vs LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (NORTH) AND ANR

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P.(C) 1263/2016

RAJIV KUMAR AND ORS.

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr Deepak Khosla, Advocate.

versus

LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (NORTH) &ANR.

..... Respondents Through: Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for LAC/L&B. Mr Deepak Bakashi, Advocate for Respondent/DDA.

CORAM:JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R R% 05.02.2019

1. The prayers in the present petition read as under:

“ It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon Court may be pleased to issue writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of the acquisition proceedings with respect to the lands comprised in Khasra No.358 (1-07) situated in the revenue estate of village Dhirpur, Delhi acquired vide Award No.26/80-81 pronounced on 9.5.1980 and further to pass appropriate writ, order or directions declaring the acquisition proceedings to have lapsed and have become inoperative under sec.24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act of 2013 as neither possession of the lands of the petitioner have been taken nor compensation with respect to lands have been paid.. Award cost of proceedings to the humble petitioner.

The Hon Court may pass such other and further order as it deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.”

W.P(C) 1263 of 2016 Page 1 of 5

2. According to the narration in the petition, it is seen that notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 („LAA‟) as well as declaration under Section 6 LAA was issued on 1[st] November 1978. The impugned Award No.26/80-81 was passed on 9[th] May 1980. Thereafter the petition straightaway refers to the passing of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 („2013 Act‟) and that since compensation for the subject lands has not been paid, nor physical possession taken, the acquisition proceedings stand lapsed. It is also stated that since the Petitioners were in actual physical possession of the land and the Respondents threatened to dispossess them of the same, they filed suit for permanent injunction in August, 2012 in the Civil Court, Rohini, Delhi which was still pending adjudication at the time of filing of the writ petition.

3. According to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the LAC, the actual physical vacant possession of the subject land falling in Khasra No.358 (1-07) was duly taken on 8[th] December 1978 and handed over to the requisition agency on the spot by preparing possession proceedings. As regards compensation, it is submitted that it was assessed in the name of the Gaon Sabha and sent to the RD on 5[th] September 1980.

4. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the DDA, it is submitted that the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition with respect to land comprising Khasra No.358 (1-07), whereas the same should in fact be Khasra No.358/1 (1-7). It is further stated that by Award No.26/80-81 dated 16[th] December 1983, the land “comprised in Khasra No.358/1 (1-7) situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Dhirpur, Delhi was acquired at the request of PWD (Public

W.P(C) 1263 of 2016 Page 2 of 5

Works Department) for work pertaining to Road No.50.”

5. No rejoinder has been filed by the Petitioner to the counter affidavit of the LAC or the DDA to contest the assertions regarding taking over of the possession and compensation with respect to the subject land. Be that as it may, the assertion by the Petitioner that he continued to remain in possession of the land in question gives rise to disputed question of facts. The fact remains that the Petitioner has no explanation to offer for the inordinate delay in approaching the Court for the relief.

6. 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 threegenerations had ever approached any of the authorities inwriting for claiming compensation. No representation hadever been filed with any authority, none has been annexed andthere is no averment made in the petition that any suchrepresentation had ever been filed. The claim appears not onlystale and dead but extremely clouded. This we are mentioningas additional reasons, as such claims not only suffer fromdelay and laches but courts are not supposed to entertain such claims. Besides such claims become doubtful, cannot bereceived for consideration being barred due to delay andlaches. but neither the petitioners nor their previous threegenerations had ever approached any of the authorities inwriting for claiming compensation. No representation hadever been filed with any authority, none has been annexed andthere is no averment made in the petition that any suchrepresentation had ever been filed. The claim appears not onlystale and dead but extremely clouded. This we are mentioningas additional reasons, as such claims not only suffer fromdelay and laches but courts are not supposed to entertain such claims. Besides such claims become doubtful, cannot bereceived for consideration being barred due to delay andlaches.

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

7. The above observations have been reiterated in the judgment of the three Judge Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (2018) 3 SCC

W.P(C) 1263 of 2016 Page 3 of 5

412 where it was observed as under:

“128. In our considered opinion section 24 cannot be used to revivethe dead or stale claims and the matters, which have beencontested up to this Court or even in the High Court having lost thecases or where reference has been sought for enhancement of thecompensation. Compensation obtained and still it is urged thatphysical possession has not been taken from them, such claimscannot be entertained under the guise of section 24(2). We havecome across the cases in which findings have been recorded that bywhich ofdrawing Panchnama, possession has been taken, nowagain under Section 24(2) it is asserted again that physicalpossession is still with them. Such claims cannot be entertained inview of the previous decisions in which such plea ought to havebeen raised and such decisions would operate as res judicata orconstructive res judicata. As either the plea raised is negatived orsuch plea ought to have been raised or was not raised in theprevious round of litigation. Section 24 of the Act of 2013 does notsupersede or annul the court‟s decision and the provisions cannotbe misused to reassert such claims once over again. Once Panchnama has been drawn and by way of drawing the Panchnama physical possession has been taken, the case cannot be reopenedunder the guise of section 24 of Act of 2013.

129. Section 24 is not intended to come to the aid of those who firstdeliberately refuse to accept the compensation, and then indulge inill-advised litigation, and often ill-motivated dilatory tactics, fordecades together. On the contrary, the section is intended to helpthose who have not been offered or paid the compensation despite itbeing the legal obligation of the acquiring body so to do, and/or whohave been illegally deprived of their possession for five years ormore; in both the scenarios, fault/cause not being attributable tothe landowners/claimants.

130. We are of the view that stale or dead claims cannot be thesubject-matter of judicial probing under section 24 of the Act of2013. The provisions of section 24 do not invalidate thosejudgment/orders of the courts where under rights/claims have beenlost/negatived, neither do they revive those rights which have comebarred, either due to inaction or otherwise by operation of law.Fraudulent and stale claims are not at all to be raised under theguise of section 24. Misuse of provisions of

W.P(C) 1263 of 2016 Page 4 of 5

section 24(2) cannot bepermitted. Protection by the courts in cases of such blatant misuseof the provisions of law could never have been the intention behindenacting the provisions of section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act; and, by thedecision laid down in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra), and thisCourt never, even for moment, intended that such cases would bereceived or entertained by the courts.”

8. The above observations have been followed by this Court in several orders including the order dated 10[th] January, 2019 in WP(C) No. 4528/2015 (MoolChandv.Union of India) and similar petitions have been dismissed on the ground of laches.

9. 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. The interim order dated 17[th] February 2016 as confirmed on 12[th] March 2018 is hereby vacated.

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

FEBRUARY 05, 2019

SANJEEV NARULA, J.

W.P(C) 1263 of 2016 Page 5 of 5