W.P.(C)/4526/2017 of RAM KALA & ORS Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 4526/2017

RAM KALA & ORS.

..... Petitioners

Through: Mr. Dharam Raj Ohlan, Advocate

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

..... Respondents Through: Ms. Shobhna Takiar for DDA Mr. Siddharth Panda for L&B/LAC

CORAM:JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA

29.03.2019

1. The prayers in the petition read as under:

“a) Issue writ of certiorari and/or any other writ, order or direction of the similar nature declaring the entire acquisition proceedings with respect to 19 Bigha 17 Biswas of the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 322(04-16), 323(04-16), 350(04- 16), 907/1 (02-05) wherein compensation has been paid (but majority of beneficiary not paid) and 885/2 (03-04) wherein compensation has not been paid, situated in revenue Estate of village Mahipalpur, New Delhi having lapsed and further quashing the impugned notification No.FA(98)/64-L&H dated 23.01.1965 issued under section 4, Notification No. A(98)/64-L&B dated 07.12.1966 issued under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Award no.2182 Supplementary 'B' dated 31.03.1972 and direct them to pay the compensation as per New Act 2013.

b) issue Writ and/or any other writ, order and directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem and proper in the fact and circumstances of the present case.

c) Pass any other order or orders as may be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

W.P.(C) 4526/2017 Page 1 of 5

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. 2182-B was passed on 31[st] March 1972. There is no explanation in the petition for the inordinate delay in approaching the Court for relief.

3. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the LAC, it is submitted that the possession of Khasra Nos. 322(04-16), 323(04-16), 350(04- 16), 907/1 (02-05) was taken over on 5[th] May 1972. It is also submitted that the Petitioner has not filed any revenue nor any title documents to support the contention that the Petitioners or their predecessors-in-interest were ever the recorded owners of the land. On the aspect of compensation, it is submitted that compensation for the subject lands has been paid to the recorded owners on 11[th] May 1972 as per the Naksha Muntazamin and it is also an admitted fact that compensation has been received in Para 6.2 and 6.3 of the Petition. It is further submitted that compensation for one Khasra No. 885/2 (3-04) was deposited with the Reference Court under Section 30-31 of the LAA. judgment was passed by the Reference Court on 30[th] April 2010 and compensation has been paid to the recorded owners.

4. In the counter-affidavit filed by the DDA, it is submitted that the petition is barred by delay and laches. It is further submitted that as per the land records, the land bearing Khasra Nos. 322(4-14), 323(4-16), 350(4-16), 907/1(2-5), 885/2(3-4) was handed over to the DDA by the LAC on 9[th] February 1981. It is submitted that the compensation for the said lands was released prior to 1980 to the concerned LAC.

W.P.(C) 4526/2017 Page 2 of 5

5. No rejoinder has been filed by the Petitioners to the counter affidavit of the LAC or the DDA.

6. In any event, the assertion by the Petitioners that they continue to remain in possession of 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 only belatedly, 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 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 24cannot 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:-

“128. In our considered opinion section 24 cannot be used to revive the dead or stale claims and the matters, which have been contested up to this Court or even in the High Court having lost the cases or

W.P.(C) 4526/2017 Page 3 of 5

where reference has been sought for enhancement of the compensation. Compensation obtained and still it is urged that 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 been recorded that by which of drawing Panchnama, possession has been taken, now again under Section 24(2) it is asserted again that physical possession is still with them. Such claims cannot be entertained in view of the previous decisions in which such plea ought to have been raised and such decisions would operate as res judicata or constructive res judicata. As either the plea raised is negatived or such plea ought to have been raised or was not raised in the previous round of litigation. Section 24 of the Act of 2013 does not supersede or annul the court‟s decision and the provisions cannot be 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 reopened under the guise of section 24 of Act of 2013.129. Section 24 is not intended to come to the aid of those who first deliberately refuse to accept the compensation, and then indulge in ill-advised litigation, and often ill-motivated dilatory tactics, for decades together. On the contrary, the section is intended to help those who have not been offered or paid the compensation despite it being the legal obligation of the acquiring body so to do, and/or who have been illegally deprived of 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 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 come 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.”

W.P.(C) 4526/2017 Page 4 of 5

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 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 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 its decision 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. The grounds urged by the Respondents in the counter-affidavit are also being left open to be argued.

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

MARCH 29, 2019

I.S. MEHTA, J.

W.P.(C) 4526/2017 Page 5 of 5