W.P.(C)/2702/2016 of MOHD MAIN THROUGH HIS GPA HOLDER Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

$~35*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 2702/2016

CORAM:

JUSTICE S.MURALIDHARJUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R R%05.02.2019

SANJEEV NARULA, J.:

1. In this Petition though there is no prayer sought for lapsing of theacquisitionproceedingundersection24(2)oftheRighttoFairCompensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation andResettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter 'the 2013 Act'), however the prayers arecouched in manner to achieve the same objective. The prayer clause readsas under:-

“a) pass appropriate writs, orders and/or directions in the natureof certiorari quashing section4 Notification bearing No.F/15(24)57 dated 3.9.1957 and the acquisition proceedings, ifany, in Old Khasra No 22, 149, 150 and 151 and now Khasra No.1529 and 1945 Ali Ganj, Nehru Nagar, Lajpat Nagar, New DelhiAli Ganj, Nehru Nagar, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi;

b)pass appropriate writs, orders and/or directions in the nature ofmandamus directing the Respondents not to claim any right,interest or title in Old Khasra No 22, 149, 150 and 151 and nowKhasra No. 1529, 1530 and 1945 Ali Ganj, Nehru Nagar, LajpatNagar, New Delhi.

c) pass such other order(s) in the facts and circumstances of thecase as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and proper infavour of the Petitioner.”

2. The narration of the petition reveals that originally the land falling inkhasra no. 22, 149, 150 and 151 of Village Kilokri, Balabgarh, District,Delhi belonged to the purported recorded owner- Mr. Anant Ram. It is statedthat khasra nos. 22, 149, 150 and 151 of Village Kilokri, Balabgarh, District,Delhi were changed and merged into khasra nos. 1529, 1530 and 1945 atVillage Aliganj, Nehru Nagar, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. On the basis of thechain of sale-purchase documents, Petitioner claims to have purchasedkhasra nos. 1529, 1530 and 1945 at Village Aliganj, Nehru Nagar, LajpatNagar, New Delhi, from Mr. Chaman Miyan S/o Raziuddin Sheikh by wayof Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Receipt and Will, in the year 1967.Since then Petitioner claims to hold possession and ownership over thesubject land. It is further stated that in response to Petitioner’s RTI

application Land and Building Department responded that, in respect ofkhasra nos. 141/2 (0-18), 150 (06-18) and 151 (06-07), notification undersection 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter 'LAA') was issuedon 3[rd]September 1957, followed by declaration under 6 of the LAA, dated16[th]March 1961 and an Award no. 1152. Petitioner further claims that inrespect of khasra no. 22 no acquisition proceedings have been initiated bythe appropriate authority till date.

3. Petitioner claims that neither possession of the subject land has been takennor compensation has been paid to the recorded owners/Petitioner. Hence hewould be entitled to declaration under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act aspleaded in para 2(vii to xv) of the petition.

4. The Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) in its counter affidavit hasaffirmed that lands of village Kilokari, were notified vide Notification undersection 4 of LAA, dated 3[rd]September 1957 followed by declaration undersection 6 of the LAA, dated 16[th]March 1961 and an Award no. 1152.Further it is stated that physical possession of the land falling in khasra nos.149/2(00-18), 150 (06-18), 151 (06-07) was taken on 4[th]August, 1961 andhanded over to the beneficiary department- Land and Housing Department(L&H). As per the Naksha Muntazamin, three khasra numbers were changedand relevant details w.r.t payment of compensation for the above notedacquisition proceedings to the recorded owners has been provided as under:-

Old k no.22,149, 150 and 151Possession taken of KhasraAs Per Payment File no.and now k no.1529,1530 andNo.l49/2(00-18),150(06-1152 of Village18),151(06-07)onKilokari, Shumar No.SO

5. DDA in its counter affidavit has stated that the present petition is liable tobe dismissed in limine, for not annexing the relevant records of the landacquisition proceedings that have been challenged herein. DDA has disputed

Petitioner's claim in respect of change and merger of khasra nos. 22, 149,150 and 151 of Village Kilokri, Balabgarh, Delhi into khasra nos. 1529,1530 and 1945 at Village Aliganj, Nehru Nagar, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi.Further DDA has annexed relevant records (Khatoni) to submit that landfalling in Khasra No. 1529(4-13), 1530 (7-14) situated in the Revenue Estateof Village Aliganj is recorded as Government Land, belonging to L&DO,while the land falling in Khasra No. 1945 (116-16) situated in RevenueEstate of Village Aliganj, is recorded as Government Land in the name of“Joint Water Works Sewage Board”. It is stated that on 2[nd]September 1982DDA the land falling in Khasra no. 1529 and 1530 was transferred to theDDA by the Ministry of Rehabilitation in the year 1982 and DDA continuesto hold possession over the same till date. Hence the question of land fallingin village Aliganj, Nehru Nagar, Lajpat Nagar, being acquired by the landacquisition proceedings of 1957-1961 in respect of land falling in VillageKilokri, Balabgarh, does not arise.

6. Further it is stated that Petitioner has purchased the land by way of Powerof attorney and other unregistered documents which do not confer any rightor title to the Petitioner in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in thecase of Suraj Lamp and Industries Private ltd v State of Haryana, (2012) 1SCC 656. It is also stated that the petition is barred by delay and laches forfailure of the Petitioners to challenge the acquisition proceedings for severalyears. Extensive reliance has been placed on the decision of IndoreDevelopment Authority v. Shailendra, (2018) 3 SCC 412 and Mahavir v.

Union of India (2018) 3 SCC 588, to state that Section 24(2) of the 2013Act, cannot be used to revive stale and dead claims.

7. Petitioner in its rejoinder to the counter affidavit of LAC has denied thatphysical possession of khasra nos. 149/2(00-18), 150 (06-18), 151 (06-07)was taken on 4[th]August, 1961 and handed over to the beneficiarydepartment and compensation was paid to the recorded owners. It is furthersubmitted that in the year 1927 the old Khasra nos. i.e. 22, 149, 150, 151 ofVillage Kilokari, Tehsil Ballabhgarh were merged and were allotted khasranos. 1529, 1530 and 1945 in Village Aliganj, Nehru Nagar, Lajpat Nagar,New Delhi.

8. Petitioners has not stated what further steps have been taken by him in thisregard, hence, the question of Petitioner being in possession of the land inquestion becomes disputed question of fact, which cannot be dealt with byway of the present petition for the reasons mentioned hereinafter.

9. This petition has been filed invoking the extraordinary power of the Courtunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is settled position of lawthat this Court, in the exercise of Writ Jurisdiction, does not delve intodisputed question of rights and title of the parties. Thus matters in whichdisputed questions of fact are involved, cannot be decided in summaryproceeding based solely on the pleadings of the parties. Such disputedmatters must be decided by the Civil Courts after recording of due evidencein the matter.

10. There is no explanation whatsoever offered in the petition for theinordinate delay in coming forward to file the present petition.Theacquisition proceedings in respect of the subject land were conducted in theyear 1957-1961, whereas the present petition has been filed after more thansix decades and no other steps have been taken by the Petitioners. Thepetition is obviously barred by laches.

11. In Mahavir v. Union of India (2018) 3 SCC 588, the Supreme Courtheld 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 had everbeen filed with any authority, none has been annexed and thereis no averment made in the petition that any such representationhad ever been filed. The claim appears not only stale and deadbut extremely clouded. This we are mentioning as additionalreasons, as such claims not only suffer from delay and lachesbut courts are not supposed to entertain such claims. Besidessuchclaimsbecomedoubtful,cannotbereceivedforconsideration being barred due to delay and laches.

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 of inquiryafter the lapse of reasonable period of time and beneficialprovisions of Section 24 of the 2013 Act are not available to

such incumbents. In our opinion, Section 24 cannot revive thoseclaims that are dead and stale.”

12. The aforesaid Judgment has been considered by the Supreme Court inthe decision of Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra reported at(2018) 3 SCC 412, relevant portion of which is reproduced hereunder:-

“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 enhancementof the compensation. Compensation obtained and still it is urgedthat physical possession has not been taken from them, suchclaims cannot be entertained under the guise of section 24(2).We have W.P.(C) Nos. 946/2017 & 948/2017 Page 5 of 7 comeacross the cases in which findings have been recorded that bywhich of drawing Panchnama, possession has been taken, nowagain under Section 24(2) it is asserted again that physicalpossession is still with them. Such claims cannot be entertainedin view of the previous decisions in which such plea ought tohave been raised and such decisions would operate as resjudicata or constructive res judicata. As either the plea raised isnegatived 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 the provisions cannot be misused to reassert such claims onceover again. Once Panchnama has been drawn and by way ofdrawing the Panchnama physical possession has been taken, thecase cannot be reopened under the guise of section 24 of Act of2013.

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 is

intended 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 illegallydeprived of their possession for five years or more; in both thescenarios,fault/causenotbeingattributabletothelandowners/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 come 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 couldnever have been the intention behind enacting the provisions ofsection 24 (2) of the 2013 Act; and, by the decision laid down inPune Municipal Corporation (supra), and this Court never, evenfor moment, intended that such cases W.P.(C) Nos. 946/2017& 948/2017 Page 6 of 7 would be received or entertained by thecourts.”

13. This court has on the basis of its decision dated 17[th]January 2019 in W.P(C) 4528 of 2015 (Mool Chand v. Union of India), dismissed similarpetitions seeking declaration under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, on theground of delay and laches.

14. Following the aforementioned decisions and in the light of the facts andcircumstances listed out hereinbefore, the Court dismisses the presentpetition both on the ground of laches as well as merits. The interim stay

granted by this Court in its order dated 8[th]of April, 2016 which stoodconfirmed by the order dated 14[th]November, 2017 stands vacated.

SANJEEV NARULA, J.

S.MURALIDHAR, J.

FEBRUARY 05, 2019Bisht