W.P.(C)/627/2018 of INDRAJ & ORS Vs LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (SE) & ANR

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 627/2018

INDRAJ & ORS.

..... Petitioners

Through: Mr Deepak Khosla, Advocate.

versus

LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (SE) & ANR.

..... Respondents Through: Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for LAC/L&B. Mr SumitChander and Mr Jatin Choudhary, Advocates for R-1. Ms Mrinalini Sen, standing counsel for DDA.

CORAM:

JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R R28.01.2019

1. The prayers in the present petition read as under:

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon‟ble Court may be pleased to issue writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land comprised in khasra No. 150/2 (1-18), 151 (3-05), 152 (2-14) 153/1 (0-18) and 155/1 (00-08) having 1/3 share situated in the revenue estate of village KotlaMaigiran, New Delhi acquired vide award No.1263 dated 31.01.1962 and further to issue appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the acquisition proceedings having lapsed and have become inoperative after the coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act of 2013.

Award cost of proceedings to the humble petitioner.

The Hon‟ble Court may pass such other and further orders as it deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.”

W.P(C) 627 of 2018 Page 1 of 5

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 10[th]November 1960 followed by declaration under Section 6 of LAA on 27[th]October 1961. The impugned Award No.1263 was passed way back on 31[st]January 1962. There is no attempt made in the writ petition to explain the inordinate delay in approaching the Court for the reliefs in terms of Section 24 (3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 („the 2013 Act‟). According the Petitioners, since possession was not taken and the compensation amount was not paid, there was no occasion for the Petitioners to seek any relief till the passing of the 2013 Act.

3. In the counter-affidavit filed by the LAC, it is stated that subsequent to the passing of the Award, possession of the subject land was taken on 27[th] March 1962. As regards compensation, it is stated that for the said land, it was calculated at Rs.14,030/- and was withdrawn by the recorded owner on 14[th]March 1962.

4. The above submission has been affirmed in the counter-affidavit filed by the DDA, wherein it is stated that physical possession of the acquired land was handed over to the DDA by the LAC/L&B Department on 27[th] March 1962 and that it vests with the Government free from any encumbrance. copy of the possession proceedings have been enclosed. It is also stated that the Petitioner has not placed on record any documents or proof to demonstrate either ownership or possession of the land in question.

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

W.P(C) 627 of 2018 Page 2 of 5

assertion by the Petitioners that they continued to remain in possession of the land in question gives rise to disputed question of fact. The fact also remains that the Petitioners have 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 such

claims. 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 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 revivethe dead or stale claims and the matters, which have beencontested up to this Court or even in the High Court having lost thecases or where reference has been sought for enhancement of thecompensation. Compensation obtained and still it is urged thatphysical possession has not been taken from them, such claimscannot be entertained under the guise of section 24(2). We havecome across the cases in which findings

W.P(C) 627 of 2018 Page 3 of 5

have been recorded that bywhich ofdrawing Panchnama, possession has been taken, nowagain under Section 24(2) it is asserted again that physicalpossession is still with them. Such claims cannot be entertained inview of the previous decisions in which such plea ought to havebeen raised and such decisions would operate as res judicata orconstructive res judicata. As either the plea raised is negatived orsuch plea ought to have been raised or was not raised in theprevious round of litigation. Section 24 of the Act of 2013 does notsupersede or annul the court‟s decision and the provisions cannotbe misused to reassert such claims once over again. OncePanchnama has been drawn and by way of drawing the Panchnamaphysical possession has been taken, the case cannot be reopenedunder the guise of section 24 of Act of 2013.

129. Section 24 is not intended to come to the aid of those who firstdeliberately refuse to accept the compensation, and then indulge inill-advised litigation, and often ill-motivated dilatory tactics, fordecades together. On the contrary, the section is intended to helpthose who have not been offered or paid the compensation despite itbeing the legal obligation of the acquiring body so to do, and/or whohave been illegally deprived of their possession for five years ormore; in both the scenarios, fault/cause not being attributable tothe 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 have beenlost/negatived, neither do they revive those rights which have comebarred, either due to inaction or otherwise by operation of law.Fraudulent and stale claims are not at all to be raised under theguise of section 24. Misuse of provisions of section 24(2) cannot bepermitted. Protection by the courts in cases of such blatant misuseof the provisions of law could never have been the intention behindenacting the provisions of section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act; and, by thedecision laid down in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra), and thisCourt never, even for moment, intended that such cases would bereceived or entertained by the courts.”

8. The above observations have been followed by this Court in several orders

W.P(C) 627 of 2018 Page 4 of 5

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.

9. Clearly, the Petitioners‟ case is covered by the above decisions of the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed on the ground of laches. The interim order dated 22[nd] January 2018 as confirmed on 11[th] April 2018 is hereby vacated.

S.MURALIDHAR, J.

JANUARY 28, 2019

SANJEEV NARULA, J.

W.P(C) 627 of 2018 Page 5 of 5