The Chaudhary Co-Operative ... vs The Union Of India And Ors.
1993 Latest Caselaw 560 Del

JUDGMENT

D.P. Wadhwa, J.

(1) By this petition filed on 16 December 1992 under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners seek an appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari quashing the notification dated 27 January 1984 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act'). The petitioners also seek a mandamus directing the respondents to release the land of the petitioners. The land in question is stated to be bearing Khasra Nos. 4/26 and 37, measuring 5 bighas and 5 biswas situated in the revenue estate of village Bagdoula, Delhi. By the impugned notification a big chunk of land measuring 3550 hectares was sought to be acquired.

(2) A declaration under section 6 of the Act was issued on 24 September 1984 and the award was made on 19September 1986. We find the petitioners earlier filed a writ petition No. 1945/86 on 23 September 1986 also challenging the impugned notification and seeking a restraint on the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the land in question. This writ petition was dismissed by order dated 6 March 1987 by a Bench of this Court.

(3) When this petition was filed we adjourned the matter to 29 January 1993 as the lawyers were abstaining from work. On this date we required the petitioners to bring on record the order dismissing the earlier writ petition and adjourned the matter to 16 September 1993. Thereafter, two applications were filed by the petitioners seeking an interim order for staying the dispossession of the petitioners from the land. We declined to grant any interim stay and we did issue notice on one such application to the respondents. They have filed their replies to the application as well as to the petition. Respondents have filed a copy of the petition filed earlier by the petitioners as well as the order dismissing that writ petition. We find averments made in that petition are same as that now made in the present petition. Then the respondents say that the statement made by the petitioners that they are still in possession of their entire land of 5 bighas and 5 biswas is false inasmuch as the respondents took possession of 2 bighas and 15 biswas of land on 9 August 1991 after an operation involving officials of Land and Building Department, D.D.A. and the police. The respondents have also brought on record the report regarding taking over possession of this land. It would, thus, appear that the petitioners are obstructing the respondents to take possession of the land in spite of the fact that even award has been made. When their earlier challenge to the acquisition proceedings failed they could not file a second petition on the same cause of action. That apart, there is too much delay in filing this petition seeking quashing of the notification of the year 1984. We think the petitioners unnecessarily tried to get an interim order from this Court by filing two successive applications and not disclosing that possession of part of the land has since been taken over by the respondents in spit& of the fact that we did not pass any interim order. Ms. Goswami said that possession has not been taken over and the reason given by her for filing the earlier two applications was that at that time there was imminent threat of the petitioners being dispossessed. We give no credence to such a statement.

(4) We are of the opinion that this petition is not filed bona fide and we dismiss the same with costs. Counsel fee Rs.2,000.00.