W.P.(C)/7105/2016 of SAT NARAIN AND ORS Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI27 + W.P.(C) 7105/2016

SAT NARAIN AND ORS.

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr Rajiv Yadav, Advocate.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

..... Respondents Through: Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for LAC/L&B. Mr Mukesh Gupta, Standing counsel for SDMC

CORAM:

JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA

O R R% 19.03.2019

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

“i. Issue writ of Mandamus, Prohibition and Certiorari or any otherappropriate order or direction to the respondents to quash thenotification F1O (20)/85-L&B/4919 dated 19.2.1979 andF.10(20)/75-L&B 27414 dated 27.9.1980 under section 4 and 6of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the award no. 56/86-87dated 19.9.1986 passed by the than L.A.C.(MSW) Delhi of village Samalka in respect of the petitioners land bearing Khata Khatauni no.52 and Khasra 11/6 (5-14) situated in village Samalka, being lapsed on thecommencement of the Right to Fair Compensation andTransparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation andResettlement Act, 2013.

ii. Issue writ ofMandamus ordirection to the respondents tocancelthe endorsement/mutation of the award number 55/86-87 fromthe revenue record and they may be further directed to mutate theabove said land in question inthe name ofthe petitioners in the annual register/revenue record.

iii. direct the Respondents no.l to 4 by issuing writ of Mandamusnot to proceed further in respect of Award No. 55/86-87 Villageof Samalka

W.P(C) 7105 of 2016 Page 1 of 6

passed by the Land Acquisition Collector under theLand Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of land in questionbelonging to the Petitioners;

iv. Pass any other order/s which this Hon'ble Court may deem justand proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in theinterest ofjustice and equity;”

2. The background facts are that the land in question as mentioned in the prayer, located in Village Samalka was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (LAA), 1894 on 19[th] February 1979 followed by declaration under Section 6 LAA on 27[th] September 1980. The impugned Award No.55/86-87 was passed on 19[th] September 1986.

3. It is stated by the Petitioners that neither compensation was paid neither was possession of the subject land taken. No kabja-karwahi was carried out by the Respondents.The Petitioners state that they are in continuous and actual possession of the land. It is further stated that the entire area has grown to densely populated colony, known as „SamalkaExtension‟, and that the Government of NCT of Delhi, in furtherance of its policy to regularise unauthorized colonies has issued Provisional Certificate bearing number F.1-33/UC/UD/2004/Pt.III dated 17[th]September 2008 to „The Samalka Residents Welfare Association‟. It is stated that in the year 2008, the Respondents and civic authorities threatened to demolish the houses of the Petitioners, and the Petitioners filed W.P(C) Nos. 4200-4202/2006 challenging the Section 4 and Section 6 LAA notifications as mentioned above. It is seen that the said petitions were disposed of by order dated 9[th] February 2009 with the direction to the Respondents that they can complete the process of acquisition but shall not take possession of the land till the question of regularisation was finally decided by them. Thereafter, the petition straightaway refers to the passing of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the „2013 Act‟).

W.P(C) 7105 of 2016 Page 2 of 6

4. The narration in the petition itself reveals that the land in question claimed by the Petitioner forms part of an unauthorized colony. The unauthorized colony is known as Samalka Extension and figures at Sl.No.779 in the list of unauthorized colonies awaiting regularization as displayed on the website of the Department of Urban Development, GNCTD.

5. In respect of the lands that form part of unauthorized colony this Court has taken the consistent view that no relief under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act can be granted. The legal position has been explained by this Court in Mool Chand

v. Union of India 2019 (173) DRJ 595 (DB) as under:

“48. The third aspect of the case is that the Petitioner admits that the land in question is part of an unauthorised colony. The very basis for seeking regularisation of an unauthorised colony is that it is located on land which belongs either to the public or to some other private parties. The Petitioners would therefore not have the locus standi to seek declaration in terms of Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act in such cases since the very fact that they have sought regularisation on the basis that they are in unauthorised colony would be an admission that they do not otherwise have any valid right, title or interest in the land in question.

49. This Court has by order dated 19[th] December 2018 in WP(C) No.190/2016 (Harbhagwan Batra v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and order dated 8[th] January 2019 in WP(C) No.10201/2015 (Gurmeet Singh Grewal v. Union of India)negatived similar pleas by the Petitioners who were trying to seek similar declaration of lapsing even while admitting that they were pursuing regularisation of an unauthorised colony.

50. In decision dated 10th January 2019 in W.P. (C) 3623 of 2018 (Akhil Sibal v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi) this Court observed in this context as under:

“18. The Court at this stage may also observe that many of the unauthorized colonies are awaiting regularization orders. large portion of these colonies are by way of encroachment on public land, some of it may be on private land, but in any event, the constructions themselves are unauthorized. The major

W.P(C) 7105 of 2016 Page 3 of 6

premise on which such regularization is sought is that these constructions have been erected on public or private land which does not belong to the persons who are under occupation of those structures. That very basis gets contradicted as some of them try to seek declaration about lapsing of the land acquisition proceedings by invoking Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act. This is contradiction in terms and is legally untenable.”

6. The above decision has been followed and the legal position has been reiterated by this Court in an order dated 25[th] January, 2019 in W.P.(C) No.3438/2015 (Krishna Devi v. Union of India).

7. The fact further remains that the Petitioners have no explanation to offer for the inordinate delay in approaching the Court for the relief, with respect to an Award that was passed in 1986. 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.”

W.P(C) 7105 of 2016 Page 4 of 6

8. The above observations have been reiterated in the judgment of the three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court 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 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. Once Panchnama has been drawn and by way of drawing the Panchnama physical 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.”

9. For the aforementioned reasons, the reliefs prayed for in the petition cannot be granted. The writ petition is dismissed. The interim order dated 12[th] August 2016 as confirmed on 5[th] December 2017 is hereby vacated. As clarified in Krishna Devi v. Union of India (supra), the dismissal of the present petition will not come in the way of the Petitioners pursuing the claim for regularisation of the unauthorised colony in question.

S.MURALIDHAR, J.

MARCH 19, 2019

I.S. MEHTA, J.

W.P(C) 7105 of 2016 Page 6 of 6