H.C.Misra And Another vs Union Of India And Others
1997 Latest Caselaw 1102 Del

JUDGMENT

Arun Kumar, J.

1. The petitioners filed the present writ petition challenging the acquisition of lands comprised in Khasra No.68 (12 bighas 8 biswas) 84 (9 bigh- as), 85 (8 bighas 5 biswas) and 478/496/87 min (11 bighas 3 biswas) situat- ed within the revenue estate of village Masoodpur, Delhi. The writ petition was admitted to regular hearing by this court on 26th October, 1979 and stay of dispossession of the petitioners from the lands subject matter of the writ petition was granted. The ex-parte interim order regarding stay of dispossession was confirmed till the disposal of the writ petition vide order dated 5th February, 1980. In the writ petition the case of the petitioners mainly rested on section 55 of the Delhi Development Act. The land of the petitioners was notified for acquisition vide notifications dated 23rd January, 1965 and 26/28th December, 1968 under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, respectively. The petitioners claimed that the acquisition proceedings in this case were not concluded and a notice dated 12th February, 1979 under section 55 of the Delhi Development Act was served on the respondents. It was further averred that the respondents did not commence further acquisition proceedings within six months and issued notices under section 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act on 17th September, 1979 which was much beyond the statutory period of six months.

2. A perusal of the writ petition shows that the case of the petitioners entirely rested on section 55 of the Delhi Development Act. In fact this admitted by the learned counsel for both the parties when on 15th February, 1995 they appeared before the court and made a statement that the point regarding section 55 of the Delhi Development Act was pending for decision before a Full Bench of this court and, therefore, adjournment of hearing of the writ petition was sought to await the decision of the Full Bench. The decision of the Full Bench was delivered on 14th December, 1995. One of the respondents moved an application that the writ petition be listed for disposal in view of the Full Bench decision of this court which concluded the matter against the petitioners in the present writ petition. Faced with this situation the petitioners moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.M.No.7194/97) for amendment of the writ petition. The respondents have opposed the application mainly on the ground that entirely a new case is sought to be set up by way of amendment of the writ petition. It was also submitted that the amendment sought was highly belated. On merits also the prayer for amendment of the writ petition was contested on the ground that by way of amendment the petitioners wanted to allege discrimination on the basis that certain lands which were acquired under a different notification had been denotified on the ground that the layout plans with respect thereto had been passed by the Government before the notification was issued under section 4 of the Act. It was submitted that in the present case also for the same reason the lands of the petitioners were liable to be denotified. This averment of the petitioners has been contested by the respondents on the ground that there is no parity between the two cases. It was submitted with reference to the earlier notification where certain lands were later on exempted from acquisition that in that case the notification mentioned outer boundaries of the lands sought to be acquired, whereas in the present case the acquisition was by specific khasra numbers. The notifications regarding acquisition in the present case make specific reference to khasra numbers and, therefore, the same reasoning could not be applied. Description of lands by boundaries is in the nature of a general description of the lands sought to be covered. The notification in the present case mentions specific khasra numbers which shows that the acquiring authority had considered each parcel of land before including it in the acquisition notifications. The acquisition has been finally upheld by the court and, therefore, there is no question of any portion of acquired land being exempted at this stage.

3. I have carefully considered the rival contentions of two learned counsel for the parties. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the amendment sought by the petitioners cannot be allowed. The petitioners are trying to set up a totally new case by way of amendment. A reference to the entire writ petition shows that the case totally rests on the interpreta- tion of section of the Delhi Development Act. Now at this stage when the interpretation of section 55 of the Delhi Development Act went against the petitioners in view of the decision of the Full Bench in Roshanara Begum Vs. Union of India and Others AIR 1996 DELHI 206, the petitioners have made a vain attempt to salvage the case by seeking an amendment of the writ petition. By amendment a party cannot be permitted to introduce a totally new case. Moreover as noticed earlier, the case sought to be introduced by way of amendment also does not appear to be tenable in view of the facts noted above. Discrimination can be urged on the basis of similar facts and not when the facts in two cases are different. The contents of two notifications under reference are different.

4. Apart from this, on account of delay and latches also petitioners are not entitled to seek amendment. The notification on which reliance is being placed for purposes of pleading discrimination is more than thirty years old. The petitioners never made even a whisper about the aspect of discrimination in the entire writ petition. Now that the only plea which was the basis of the writ petition has been decided against the petitioners, the petitioners have made an attempt to save their case in this manner. The application for amendment is highly belated and thus suffers on account of delay and latches. Besides, in the facts and circumstances of the case as narrated hereinbefore, the application for amendment is mala fide. The same is dismissed.

The result is that the only point raised in the writ petition regard- ing section 55 of the Delhi Development Act having been decided by this court against the petitioners, the writ petition is dismissed. No cost.