Kusum Lata vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2003 Latest Caselaw 202 Del

JUDGMENT Devinder Gupta, A.C.J.

1. In this petition filed on 20.3.2002 following directions have been sought by the petitioner:

(a) issue a writ of certiorari/mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby quashing the impugned Award No. 157/86-87 dated 19.9.1986 and notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act dated 27.1.1984 Along with notification under Section 6, L.A. Act dated 26.9.1984 to the extent of the property of the petitioner measuring 1 bigha 4 biswas situated in Khasra No. 89/23/2, village Palam, New Delhi;

 (b)    issue a writ of certiorari/mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby quashing the proceedings of taking possession (Kabza Karyawahi) dated 4.1.2002 and the proceedings thereafter; 
 

 (c)    issue a writ of certiorari/mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby awarding compensation for demolishing/ damaging the existing structure of the petitioner's property measuring 1 bigha 4 biswas situated in Khasra No. 89/23/2 village, Palam, New Delhi, which was demolished on 7.3.2002; 
 

 (d)    issue a writ of certiorari/mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the respondent DDA not to cause the fencing of the land/property of the petitioner and further direct the respondent not to fix the poles and board for the purpose of causing the fencing and to remove the fencing in case of same fixed in the meantime; 
 

 (e)    issue a writ of certiorari/mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the respondent not to remove the belongings of the petitioner from the land/property.  
 

 2. The petition came up on 21.3.2002. While issuing notice in the writ petition, the parties were directed to maintain status quo qua the land in question, which order has continued to remain in operation till date. 
 

 3. It was pointed out by learned Counsel for the parties on 26.9.2002 that the

facts and the points raised in this petition are similar to those which are involved in C.W. 1661/2002; Smt. Lajwanti v. Union of India, in which arguments had been heard and order had been reserved. Accordingly on 9.10.2002 arguments were heard in this petition as well and order was reserved. Another Division Bench in the meanwhile has dismissed C.W. 1661/2002 by its judgment dated 6.2.2003. We have gone through the judgment in that case as well.

4. Facts leading to the filing of the petition are that the petitioner claims that she acquired title to a piece of land measuring 1 bigha 4 biswas comprised in Khasra No. 89/23/2 situate in village Palam Vihar, Delhi on 8.1.1982, after she was given to understand that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi had on 29.5.1980 passed a resolution regularising Palam Group of Colonies including Sadh Nagar, Parts I and II, where the plot in question was located. On 27.1.1984 notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued expressing the intention of the Government to acquire 3550 Hectares of land in a group of villages for public purpose, namely, Planned Development of Delhi, which also included this land. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 26.9.1984. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed C.W. 184/87 challenging the legality and validity of the acquisition proceedings. The writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 20.11.1997. The petitioner filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3246/98 before the Supreme Court which was also dismissed on 7.5.1999 with certain observations, which the petitioner has quoted as under:

"After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that as at present no progress is made in respect of the request of the petitioner regarding regularisation of her possession on appropriate terms. Therefore, these proceedings are closed. Liberty reserved to the petitioner if so advised to make a representation to the Vice-Chairman, DDA within two weeks from today. If such a representation is made the Vice-Chairman may decide the representation after hearing the petitioner or her Counsel and may take appropriate decision which would obviously remain binding to both the sides. It is made clear that disposal of this S.L.P. will not come in the way of the authority in taking independent decision. Till the decision is rendered and communicated to the petitioner within one week from date of decision status quo as existing on the spot today shall be maintained till the expiry of one week from date of decision. The S.L.P. is disposed of subject to the aforesaid."

5. It is petitioner's case that on 19.5.1999 she submitted requisite representation to the Vice Chairman, DDA which was rejected on 28.10.1999. In order to challenge the said order of rejection the petitioner filed misc. application in SLP (Civil) No. 3246/98, which was dismissed on 12.1.2000. The petitioner thereafter filed C.W. 1028/2000 challenging the order of rejection of her representation by the Vice Chairman, DDA. The petitioner's case is that her writ petition was dismissed on 24.3.2000 by learned Single Judge against which letters patent appeal was preferred which was also dismissed. The petitioner also filed a suit for injunction (S. No. 398/ 2000) which was dismissed as withdrawn on 18.3.2002. Another suit was filed for declaration and injunction which was also dismissed as withdrawn on 18.3.2002.

6. The petitioner's case in the aforementioned background is that since the area in question has been denotified by Notification Nos. 16177-227 issued under Section 22A of the Delhi Development Act, therefore, the petitioner's possession deserves to be regularised and accordingly has sought the aforesaid directions. The petition has vehemently been opposed by the respondents who have filed their reply on the affidavit of Shri N.N. Puri, Director (LM-1), DDA, New Delhi.

7. As regards the reliefs claimed by the petitioner challenging the legality and validity of acquisition proceedings, the same stands concluded when her earlier writ petitions were dismissed. Even the challenge which was made by her to regularise her possession also failed when her writ petition was dismissed. The only ground on which the petitioner now seeks relief is that the area ceased to be a development area because of withdrawal of notification. This aspect has been duly considered in detail in judgment delivered on 6.2.2003 in C.W. 1661/2002 in which another aspect which the petitioner has highlighted, namely, the manner in which possession was sought to be taken by the officials of DDA in particular, Shri Mauji Ram was also considered in detail and was turned down. We need not record separately our reasons since we are in full agreement with the reasonings adopted by the Division Bench in its decision in C.W. 1661/2002 and for that we do not find any merit in the petition which is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/-.