W.P.(C)/607/2015 of SANJAY GUPTA Vs UOI & ORS.

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 607/2015

SANJAY GUPTA

..... PetitionerThrough:Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate with Mr.Harpreet Singh and Mr. Pranjal Saran,Advocates.Harpreet Singh and Mr. Pranjal Saran,Advocates.

versus

UOI & ORS...... RespondentThrough:Mr. Amit Acharya, Advocate withMr. Sanjib Kumar Mohanty, SeniorPanel Central Govt. Counsel for UOI.Mr. Siddharth Panda, Advocate forLAC/L&B.Through:Mr. Amit Acharya, Advocate withMr. Sanjib Kumar Mohanty, SeniorPanel Central Govt. Counsel for UOI.Mr. Siddharth Panda, Advocate forLAC/L&B.

CORAM:

JUSTICE S.MURALIDHARJUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R R%17.01.2019

1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relies on an order dated 11[th]July, 2017

passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.2587/2015 (Sudhir Kumar Yadav v. The Lt. Governor, Government ofNCT of Delhi & Ors) where in another parcel of land covered by the sameAward dated 24[th]April, 1998 in the same Kharsa numbers, declaration ofdeemed lapsing of the land acquisition proceedings has been issued.

2. Learned counsel for the Respondents informs the Court that they areproposing to file Special Leave Petition against the above order as sanction

for the same has been received from the competent authority.

3. Be that as it may, this is petition seeking lapsing of the land acquisitionproceedings which culminated in the above Award No.1/98-99 in respect of1 bigha and 1.5 biswas of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 299(5-05), 300(8-12), 305(8-13) and 306(3-10) pursuant to the Section 4 notification underthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LAA) which was issued on 28[th]April, 1995followed by declaration under Section 6 LAA on 26[th]April, 1996. There isno attempt made in the petition to explain the inordinate delay inapproaching the Court.

4. The Supreme Court, in Mahavir v. Union of India (supra), observed asunder:

“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 in writingfor claiming compensation. No representation had ever been filedwith 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 additional reasons,as such claims not only suffer from delay and laches but courts arenot supposed to entertain such claims. Besides such claimsbecome doubtful, cannot be received for consideration beingbarred 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 adjudicated asthey 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 our

opinion, Section 24 cannot revive those claims that are dead andstale.”

5. Following the above judgment, this Court has in W.P.(C) No.2734/2015dated 10[th]December 2018 (Devender Singh v The Hon’ble Lt. Governor),W.P.(C) No.1380/2016 dated 17[th]December 2018 (Bhule Ram v Union ofIndia), W.P.(C) No.5647/2016 dated 21[st]December 2018 (Ram Devi v NCTof Delhi), and in W.P.(C) No.6287/2014 dated 19[th]December 2018 (KartarSingh v Union of India), rejected petitions seeking similar reliefs on theground of laches.

6. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed on thegrounds of both laches and merits. The interim order dated 20[th]January2015 as confirmed on 5[th]March 2018 is hereby vacated.

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

JANUARY 17, 2019ss

SANJEEV NARULA, J.