W.P.(C)/9365/2015 of TARUN MITTAL Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR

Mr. Yeeshu Jain and Ms. Jyoti Tyagi,Advocates for LAC/L&B.Ms. Mrinalini Sen and Ms. NihaarikaJauhari, Advocates for DDA.

+W.P.(C) 9399/2015 & CM APPL. 20519/2018TARUN MITTAL

..... Petitioner

Through:Ms. Nishitha Garg, Advocate.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR

..... RespondentsThrough:Mr. Yeeshu Jain and Ms. Jyoti Tyagi,Advocates for LAC/L&B.

CORAM:JUSTICE S.MURALIDHARJUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R R16.01.2019

1. These writ petitions arise out of common set of facts. Although theyhave been heard separately, they are being disposed of by this commonjudgment.

2. The prayer in W.P.(C) 9365/2015 reads as under:

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon Court may bepleased to issue writ / order/ direction in the nature of certioraricalling for the records of the acquisition proceedings with respectto the lands comprised in Khasra NOs. 97 (11-14), 104 (2-14)569-119 (0-18), 612- 439 (12-19) 96 (1-10) situated in therevenue estate, of village Khichripur , Delhi^ acquired videAwardNo.30-A/l970-71Supplementarypronouncedon

14.03.1977 and further to pass appropriate writ, order ordirections declaring the acquisition proceedings to have lapsedand have become inoperative under sec.24(2) of the Right to FairCompensationandTransparencyinLandAcquisition,Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act of 2013 as the possessionhas been, taken pursuant to the award but no compensation withrespect to lands have been paid.”

3. The prayer in W.P.(C) 9366/2015 reads as under:

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon Court may bepleased to issue writ / order / direction in the nature of certioraricalling for the records of the acquisition proceedings with respectto the lands comprised in Khasra Nos. 430 3-18), 1293/511 (1-10), 444 (5-05), 435/2 (7-00), 532 (1-07), 1412/183 (5-14), 461(1-10) AND 228 (3-00), situated in the revenue estate of villageMandawali Fazalpur, Delhi acquired vide Award No. 2179pronounced on 18.11.1968 and further to pass appropriate writ,order or directions declaring the acquisition proceedings to havelapsed and have become inoperative under sec.24(2) of the Rightto Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land. Acquisition,Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act of 2013 as possession hasbeen taken pursuant to the award but no compensation withrespect to lands have been paid.”

4. The prayer in W.P.(C) 9369/2015 reads as under:

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon Court may bepleased to issue writ / order / direction in the nature of certioraricalling for the records of the acquisition proceedings with respectto the lands comprised in Khasra No. 424 (10-07) situated in therevenue estate of village Khichripur , Delhi acquired vide AwardNo. 28-A/1970-71 Supplementary pronounced on 08.12.1974and further to pass appropriate writ, order or directions declaringthe acquisition proceedings to have lapsed and have becomeinoperative under sec.24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensationand Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation andResettlement Act of 2013 as the possession has been takenpursuant to the award but no compensation with respect to lands

have been paid.”

5. The prayer in W.P. (C) 9399/2015 reads as under:

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon Court may bepleased to issue writ / order / direction in the nature of certioraricalling for the records of the acquisition proceedings with respectto the lands comprised in Khasra No. 702/533 (2-14), 524 (3-18),534 (4-10), 217 (2-08), 218 (8-08) 238 (3-06), 293 (4-04), 294(4-07), 297 (4-15), 418 (0-15), 441 (2-08) 442 (1-16), 440 (2-07)526 (12-09), 298 (4-12), 314 (3-06), 512 (0-12), 514 (2-02)510 (7-10), 517 (5-14),535 (3-18) , 703/533 (5-04), 551 (18-12),615/465 (1-04) 532 (3-09) 754/151 (6-02), 233 (1-09), 98 (5-02),103 (8-08), 102 (8-04), 679/108 (1-10), 525 (4-01), 473 (5-11),474 (6-03), 475 (6-15), 476 (8-05), 427 (1-07), 528 (4-12), 499(2-06), 529 (4-10) 433 (0- 15), 290 ( 27-12), 458 (4-10), 309 (6-15) situated in the revenue estate of village Khichripur , DelhiacquiredvideAwardNo.28-B/l970-71Supplementarypronounced on 07.11.1975 and further to pass appropriate writ,order or directions declaring the acquisition proceedings to havelapsed and have become inoperative under sec.24(2) of the Rightto Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act of 2013 as the possessionhas pursuant to the award but no compensation with respect tolands have been paid.”

6. From the narration in the petitions, it is seen that relief is being sought inrespect of lands which have stood acquired under awards passed more thanfour decades ago and yet there is no attempt made anywhere in thesepetitions to explain the inordinate the delay in approaching the Court forrelief. The only claim made is that the Petitioners’ cause of action arosewhentheRighttoFairCompensationandTransparency inLandAcquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into effect on1[st]January 2014.

7. In the counter-affidavit filed by the DDA in each of the petitions wayback on 4[th]February 2016, it is stated that the physical possession of theland in question has already been taken over and handed over to the DDA.In separate counter affidavit filed by the LAC on 3[rd]February 2018, inW.P.(C) 9366/2015 it is pointed out in paras 4 and 5 as under:

“4. That the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed as thepetitioner has been claiming the rights on the basis of Agreementto Sell dated 10.6.2000 executed between him and his fatherwhereas his father has admittedly expired on 31.1.2006, thushaving the executor been expired. The said ‘Agreement to Sell’has become infructuous and cannot be enforced. The said writpetition is further liable to be dismissed as in the said 'Agreementto Sell dated 10.6.2000, there is no mention of the khasra number569-119 (0-18), 96 (-18), 97 (11-14) 104 (2-14) & 612-439 (12-09) for which the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.The present writ petition is further liable to be dismissed as thefather of the petitioner who allegedly entered upon an Agreementto Sell' with the petitioner, was also not the recorded owner of thesubject land falling in the khasra numbers.

5. That the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed as thepetitioners have misguided the Hon'ble Court by stating that thephysical possession of the subject land falling in subject khasranumber were not taken by the Government nor the compensationhas been paid. The facts are however quite different as the partphysical possession of the subject land was duly taken on5.4.1977 on the spot and handed over to the DDA by preparingpossession proceeding on the spot. The compensation for theabove-said khasra numbers was also sent to the Reference Courtu/s 30-31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 8.3.1979 as therewas an apportionment dispute as per table annexed with thepresent counter affidavit.”

8. similar affidavit has been filed in the other petition. No rejoinder hasbeen filed by the Petitioner either to the affidavit of the DDA or of the LAC

till date in any of the petitions. The assertion by the Petitioner therefore thatphysical possession of the land in question has not been taken orcompensation has not been paid stands gives rise to disputed questions offacts which cannot be examined in the present petitions.

9. The fact remains that the Petitioners have no explanation to offer for theinordinate delay in approaching the Court for the relief.

10. On the aspect of laches, in Mahavir v. Union of India (2018) 3 SCC588 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 hadever approached any of the authorities in writing for claimingcompensation. No representation had ever been filed with anyauthority, none has been annexed and there is no averment made inthe petition that any such representation had ever been filed. Theclaim appears not only stale and dead but extremely clouded. This weare mentioning as additional reasons, as such claims not only sufferfrom delay and laches but courts are not supposed to entertain suchclaims. Besides such claims become doubtful, cannot be received forconsideration being barred due to delay and laches.

24. The High Court has rightly observed that such claims cannot bepermitted to be raised in the court, and cannot be adjudicated as theyare barred. The High Court has rightly observed that such claimscannot be subject matter of inquiry after the lapse of reasonableperiod of time and beneficial provisions of Section 24 of the 2013 Actare not available to such incumbents. In our opinion, Section 24cannot revive those claims that are dead and stale.”

11. The above observations have been followed by this Court in severalorders 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.

12. For all of the above reasons, the petitions are dismissed.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

JANUARY 16, 2019nk

SANJEEV NARULA, J