W.P.(C)/1454/2018 of KUM KUM GUPTA Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

$-18, 19, 20, 21, 22

Pathak, Mr. Jay Kamal AgarwalAdvocate

Rabia Shah for UOIMr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counseland Ms. Jyoti Tyagi for L&B/LAC

CORAM:JUSTICE S.MURALIDHARJUSTICE TALWANT SINGH

ORDER%19.07.2019

1. All these petitions have been filed by the same Petitioner, the facts aremore or less are similar and the reliefs sought are identical. They areaccordingly being disposed of by this common order. Nevertheless, each ofthe petitions was heard separately.

2. For the sake of convenience W.P.(C) 1505 of 2018 titled Kum KumGupta V. Union of India & Ors. is taken up as the lead case. The prayers inthe petition read as under:

"i) To declare that the acquisition proceedings in respect of theproperty admeasuring 2 Bighas 19 Biswas comprised in KhasraNo. 422/4 (5 Biswas) and Khasra No. 423 (2 Bhigas and4Biswas), (earlier agricultural land) now built up portionthereon, situated in Village Neb Sarai, Tehshil - Mehrauli,District-South, New Delhi-110 074, initiated under the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 have lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) ofthe new Act, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency inLand Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

ii) Issue any other writ, order, or direction that may be deemedfit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favorof the Petitioner and against the Respondents."

3. The narration in the petition reveals that the notification under Section 4of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('LAA') was issued on 5^^ November

1980, followed by declaration under Section 6 of the LAA on 21^^ May1985. The impugned Award No. 12/1987-88 was passed way back on 18"^May 1987. There is no explanation in the petition for the inordinate delay inapproaching the Court for relief.

4. It is stated in the petition that the Petitioner is the owner the' owner and inpossession of the property admeasuring 2 Bigha 19 Biswas comprised inKhasra No. 422/4 (5 Biswas) and Khasra No. 423 (2 Bigha and 4 Biswas),(earlier agricultural land) now built up portion thereon, situated in VillageNeb Sarai, Tehshil - Mehrauli, District-South." It is stated that the recordedowner of the land was Late Shri Inder Singh. After his passing, his two sonsDevinder Singh and Narender Singh were the actual owners. It is stated thatthe Petitioner acquired the land via registered sale deed dated L' January1998 executed by Shri T.S. Chowdhary who is the attorney of the originalland owners. It is stated that the Petitioner is still in possession of the saidland and no compensation has been paid to the Petitioner or to any of thepredecessors-in-interest.

5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the LAC, it is submitted that thePetitioner is claiming ownership of the land based on sale deed which isregistered in Bombay. It is stated further submitted that as per the NakshaMuntazim, the children of one Shri Mehar Singh are the recorded owners ofland in Khasra no. 422/4 (0-5), also having half share in land in Khasra no.423 (2-7) and remaining half share in Khasra no. 423 (2-7) belongs to shriMansingh. It is stated that possession of Khasra No. 422 and 423has notbeen taken. On the aspect of compensation, the LAC has submitted table

which shows that the compensation was submitted in the RD in 1988 andwas subsequently withdrawn for Award No. 1/93-94.

6. No counter affidavit has been filed by the DDA. No rejoinder has beenfiled by the Petitioner to the counter affidavit of the LAC.

7. The averments and pleas in the companion petitions are identical with theonly difference being the description of the lands in respect of which therelief is claimed. The responses thereto of the Respondents are identical too.

8. In any event, the assertion of the Petitioners that they continue to remainin possession of the land in question gives rise to disputed question of factwhich cannot be examined in this petition. In these cases, the Notificationunder Section 4 of LAA was passed on 5^ November 1980 and the Awardwas passed on 18^*^ May 1987. The Petitioner having full knowledge aboutthe status of the land in question and without taking permission from thecompetent authority as required under Delhi Land (Restriction of Transfer)Act, 1972 has entered into transactions in respect of the lands in question.The validity of the above documents are, therefore, extremely doubtful. Inthe circumstances, the Court is not satisfied that the Petitioner has been ableto even prima facie demonstrate its locus standi to file this petition andclaim any relief under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act.

9. 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 threegenerations had ever approached any of the authorities in writingfor claiming compensation. No representation had ever beenfiled with any authority, none has been annexed and there is noaverment made in the petition that any such representation hadever been filed. The claim appears not only stale and dead butextremely clouded. This we are mentioning as additionalreasons, as such claims not only suffer from delay and laches butcourts are not supposed to entertain such claims. Besides suchclaims become doubtful, cannot be received for considerationbeing barred due to delay and laches.

24. The High Court has rightly observed that such claims cannotbe permitted to be raised in the court, and cannot be adjudicatedas they are barred. The High Court has rightly observed that suchclaims cannot be subject matter of inquiry after the lapse of areasonable period of time and beneficial provisions of Section 24of the 2013 Act are not available to such incumbents. In ouropinion, Section 24 cannot revive those claims that are dead andstale."

10. The above decision has been reaffirmed by the judgment of the threeJudge Bench of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v.Shailendra (2018) 3 SCC 412 where it was observed as under:

"128. In our considered opinion section 24 cannot be used torevive the dead or stale claims and the matters, which have beencontested up to this Court or even in the High Court having lostthe cases or where reference has been sought for enhancement ofthe compensation. Compensation obtained and still it is urgedthat physical possession has not been taken from them, such-claims cannot be entertained under the guise of section 24(2). ,We have come across the cases in which findings have beenrecorded that by which of drawing Panchnama, possession hasbeen taken, now again under Section 24(2) it is asserted againthat physical possession is still with them. Such claims cannot beentertained in view of the previous decisions in which such plea

ought to have been raised and such decisions would operate asres judicata or constructive res judicata. As either the plea raisedis negatived or such plea ought to have been raised or was notraised in the previous round of litigation. Section 24 of the Actof 2013 does not supersede or annul the court's decision and theprovisions cannot misused to reassert such claims once overagain. Once Panchnama has been drawn and by way of drawingthe Panchnama physical possession has been taken, the casecannot be reopened under the guise of section 24 of Act of 2013.

129. Section 24 is not intended to come to the aid of those whofirst deliberately refuse to accept the compensation, and thenindulge in ill-advised litigation, and often ill-motivated dilatorytactics, for decades together. On the contrary, the section isintended to help those who have not been offered or paid thecompensation despite it being the legal obligation of theacquiring body so to do, and/or who have been illegally deprivedof their possession for five years or more; in both the scenarios,fault/cause not being attributable to the 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 havebeen lost/ negatived, neither do they revive those rights whichhave become barred, either due to inaction or otherwise byoperation of law. Fraudulent and stale claims are not at all to beraised under the guise of section 24. Misuse of provisions ofsection 24(2) cannot be permitted. Protection by the courts incases of such blatant misuse of the provisions of law could neverhave been the intention behind enacting the provisions of section24 (2) of the 2013 Act; and, by the decision laid down in PuneMunicipal Corporation (supra), and this Court never, even for amoment, intended that such cases would be received orentertained by the courts."

11. It may be noted here that the reference made by Constitution Bench in

Indore Development Authority v. Shy am Verma (2018) 4 SCC 405regarding the correctness of the aforesaid decision in Indore DevelopmentAuthority v. Shailendra {supra) is as regards the extent to which it differsfrom the earlier view of the Supreme Court in Pune Municipal CorporationV. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki(2014) 3 SCC 183 regarding the tenderingof compensation, and on certain other issues but not on the question ofpetitions seeking declaration under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act beingbarred by laches. This legal position was explained by this Court recently inMool Chand v. Union ofIndia 20I9(173)DRJ 595fDBJ.

12. For the aforementioned reasons, these writ petitions are dismissed bothon the ground of laches as well as on merits, but in the circumstances, withno orders as to costs.

13. The interim order passed by this court on 16 February 2018 whichtVistood confirmed on 19 April 2018 stands vacated in all petitions.

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

TALWANT SINGH, J.

JULY 19,2019abc