Delhi High Court
Shri Narinder Kumar Vaid vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & ... on 28 February, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001 VAD Delhi 324, 92 (2001) DLT 311, 2001 (59) DRJ 454
Bench: M Sarin
ORDER
Manmohan Sarin, J. (Oral)
1. Rule.
With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal.
2. By this writ petition, petition seeks a mandamus, restraining the respondents from interfering, in any manner, with his possession of Plot No.R-262 and R-263, situated at Ramesh Park, New Delhi, earlier numbers being Plot numbers 46-47 of 'J' Block situated in Khasra No.57/13, Khureji Khas, Delhi. The immediate provocation for the petitioner to file the writ petition was that officials of the Corporation, in the month of July, 1988, sought to restrain the petitioner from carrying out any construction on the said plot.
3. Petitioner claims that on enquiry being made by the SDM and other officials, he informed them that he was the owner of the plot and showed them the documents of title. Petitioner further claims that the municipal officials, later on, threatened him that they would remove the barbed wiring and fencing put up by the petitioner.
4. Respondents ' case, on the other hand, is that the said land was acquired vide Award No.22/70-71 and , as such, the land vested in the state and the petitioner, even if he purchased the said land form the previous owners, would have no right.
5. The case took an interesting turn, in as much as, the petitioner took up the pleas that Khasra No.57/13, wherein petitioner's plot was situated, had, in fact never been acquired by the said Award. It was natural for the petitioner to suspect this since in the extract of the Award filed on record by the respondents, an addition had been made by hand to include Khasra No.13 against Rectangle 57.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rakesh Tikku, urged that the addition of Khasra No.13 in Rectangle 57 is an interpolation. It is submitted that while all other corrections in the Award have been initiated, against this particular correction there are no initials. Learned counsel relied on the Khasra Girdawari, in which the names of the owners continue to be shown, in support of his contention that there is no acquisition. It is submitted that if, indeed, the land had been acquired , the revenue records would not continue to reflect the names of the original owners in Khasra Girdawari for such long periods.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the topography of the area, where residential colonies have come up, did not suggest that the land had been acquired. He submits that it would be highly unlikely that plots of the petitioner alone had been subjected to acquisition while in all other cases construction was permitted to be raised, which fell in a colony, which is now sought to be regularised.
8. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, appearing on behalf of Union of India and the Land & Building Department, NCT of Delhi, submitted that the notification, in respect of the land in question, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 13.11.1959, while the notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 18.3.1970. He has produced the original supplementary Award on record. I have perused the same. Although it may not have been necessary for me to minutely examine the original record on account of the other pre-liminary objections raised, however, with a view to satisfy my judicial conscience that the Award had not been interpolated,I have perused the same. It is seen from the original Award that Khasra No.13 has been added between Khasra Nos.5 and 14 and its measurement is given as 4 bighas and 16 biswas and the character is Rasoli. I find that there is also another addition between Khasra Nos.19-25/3 in hand of khasra No.23, with the same measurement, i.e. 4 bighas and 16 biswas. The initials have been put in between these two corrections. Besides, there are other corrections made in the Award which have all been initiated and done in the same hand and ink. I, therefore, find no reason to suspect the authenticity of this Award.
9.This apart, the very strong corroborative feature which leaves the matter beyond any doubt, is that the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner, viz. M/s. Bidi Chand and Hakumat Rai, from whom petitioner had purchased this land, had filed their claims before the Land Acquisition Collector. I have seen the sale deeds at page 17 of the paper book. These are executed by Bidi Chand and Hakumat Rai. The predecessors-in-title of the petitioner having participated in the acquisition proceedings and staked their claims before the Land Acquisition Collector, it would not be open for the petitioner, at this belated stage, after a passage of nearly 23 years, to challenge and assail the acquisition of the land. Reference may be usefully made to the decision of the Apex Court in Municipal Council. Ahmednagar & Another Vs. Shah Hyder Beig & Others (2002) 2 SCC 48, where the Apex Court has upheld the non-entertainment of the writ petitions filed after considerable delay.
10. The mere fact that revenue entries in the Khasra Girdawari continue to remain in the name of the original owners, would not negate the factum of acquisition. The main plank of petitioner's case of the land not being acquired, having been found to be without substance, the writ petition has to fail.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner, in this manner, is being singled out and discriminated against. Petitioner and his predecessor not having challenged the acquisition all this while, cannot now complain of discrimination. It would be for the petitioner to avail of such administrative remedies, as may be available to him at law, to seek denoficiation of the land from acquisition. In any case, I am not required to say anything on this aspect.
12. The writ petition is dismissed.
