W.P.(C)/327/2016 of LAL CHAND & ORS Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

41 + W.P.(C) 327/2016

LAL CHAND & ORS. ..... Petitioners

Through: Mr Rajesh Gupta, Mr Harpreet Singh, Mr MC Verma and Mr Pranjal Soren Advocates for the Petitioner.

versus

UNION OF INDIA& ORS.

..... Respondents Through: Mr Prasanta Varma, CGSC for Respondent/UOI. Mr Pawan Mathur, Standing Counsel for DDA. Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for LAC/L&B.

CORAM:JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R R24.01.2019

The prayers in the present petition read as under:

“(I) issue writ of DECLARATION and/or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction in the like nature declaring the impugned acquisition proceedings commenced vide notification under Section 4 of Act 1894 bearing no. F.11(19)/01/L&B/LA/20112 Dated 21.03.2003 resulting in Award no. 25/2005-06 for Village Kirari Suleman Nagar (Patti Nithari) Delhi vis-a-vis subject lands (detailed in Para 5) stands lapsed;

(II)Consequently,issue writ of CERTIORARI quashing the impugned acquisition proceedings commenced vide notification under Section 4 of Act 1894 bearing no. F.11(19)/01/L&B/LA/20112 Dated 21.03.2003 resulting in Award No. 25/2005-06 for Village Kirari Suleman Nagar (Patti

W.P(C) 327 of 2016 Page 1 of 4

Nithari) Delhi vis-a-vis subject lands (Para 5);

(III)Issue MANDAMUS and/or any other Writ, Order or direction in the like nature commanding the respondents not to interfere with and/or obstruct the petitioners in peaceful enjoyment of the subject lands (detailed in Para 5) situate in Village Kirari Suleman Nagar (Patti Nithari), Delhi;

(IV) Pass any other or further writ, order or direction which this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

2. According to the narration in the petition, it is seen that notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 („LAA‟) was issued on 21[st]March 2003 followed by declaration under Section 6 LAA on 19[th] March 2004. The impugned Award No.25/2005-06 was passed on 6[th] February 2006.

3. It is further stated that no compensation has been paid for the land in question, possession of the said land was not taken and still continues to remain with the Petitioner. There is no attempt made in the writ petition to explain the inordinate delay of decade in approaching the Court for the reliefs in terms of Section 24 (3) of the 2013 Act.

4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the DDA, it is submitted that the Petitioners have not produced any title documents nor copy from the revenue records to prove their ownership in respect of the subject lands. It is further stated that subsequent to the Award No.25/2005-06 being passed, physical possession of the acquired land was taken by the LAC/L&B Department and handed over to the DDA on 13[th] November 2006 for the development of the Rohini Residential Scheme. It is also stated that as regards compensation, it was released to the L&B Department by Cheque No.095413 dated 26[th] June 2006 which amounted to Rs.92,10,69,942/-.

W.P(C) 327 of 2016 Page 2 of 4

5. No rejoinder has been filed to the counter affidavit of the DDA to contest the assertions regarding taking over of the possession. In any event, the assertion by the Petitioner that he continued to remain in possession of the land in question gives rise to disputed question of fact which cannot be examined in the present proceedings. The fact also 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 suchclaims. 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 followed by this Court in several orders including the order dated 10[th] December, 2018 in WP(C) No. 2734/2015 (Devender Singh v. The Hon’ble Lt. Governor) and similar petitions have been dismissed on the ground of laches.

W.P(C) 327 of 2016 Page 3 of 4

8. 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 15[th] January 2016 as confirmed on 28[th] September 2018 hereby stands vacated.

S.MURALIDHAR, J.

JANUARY 24, 2019

SANJEEV NARULA, J.

W.P(C) 327 of 2016 Page 4 of 4