Delhi High Court
Priyaneet Kaur W/O Shri Arvinder ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through The ... on 2 June, 2006
Author: M B Lokur
Bench: S Kumar, M B Lokur
JUDGMENT
Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. The Petitioners challenged a notification dated 25th November, 1980 passed by the Respondents under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as well as a notification dated 27th May, 1985 passed under Section 6 of the Act.
2. When the writ petition came up for final disposal on 9th March, 2005, no one appeared on behalf of the Petitioner. We examined the record with the assistance of learned Counsel for the Respondents and found that the Petitioner had not made any averment in the writ petition that objections under Section 5A of the Act were filed. Under the circumstances, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban and Ors. as well as two decisions of this Court, we dismissed the writ petition.
3. Thereafter, the Petitioners filed three applications before us including an application for recalling the order dated 9th March, 2005. The other two applications are CM No. _______/2005 (not numbered) under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and CM No. _______/2005 (not numbered) an application for exemption from filing a certified copy of the order dated 9th March, 2005. We allow both these applications.
4. In so far as the substantive application for recalling the order passed on 9th March, 2005 is concerned, it was brought to our notice that even though it was not stated in the writ petition that objections were filed under Section 5A of the Act, the Petitioners moved an application being CM No. 6918/1997 under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC for incorporating paragraph 4-A in the writ petition in which it was mentioned that the previous owner of the land had filed objections under Section 5A of the Act on 24th December, 1980. Since the Petitioners were their successors-in-interest, the objections filed by the previous owners may be read as objections filed by the Petitioners.
5. The Petitioners withdrew this application with liberty to file fresh application with better particulars. The fresh application being CM No.7251/1997 also under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC stated that the Petitioners had purchased the acquired land from the previous owners by a registered sale deed dated 30th May, 1985. Paragraph 4-A of the writ petition was sought to be added in the writ petition to incorporate this fact.
6. At the outset, we may note that the photocopy of the alleged sale deed dated 30th May, 1985 filed by the Petitioners along with CM No.7251/1997 does not show that it is a registered document and it is also an unsigned document. We may also note that it is not at all clear to us how the sale could have been effected on 30th May, 1985 particularly when the notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued a few days earlier, that is, on 27th May, 1985. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to place any reliance upon the sale deed filed by the Petitioners.
7. In any case, we also find from the order sheets of the case that CM No.6918/1997 was dismissed as withdrawn on 2nd September, 1997 with liberty to the Petitioners to file a fresh application indicating the full particulars explaining the nature of their title and how and when they got title to the acquired land. It is under these circumstances, that CM No.7251/1997 was filed by the Petitioners.
8. CM No.7251/1997 was first listed on 11th September, 1997 when it was adjourned to 19th November, 1997. Thereafter, the application was not specifically listed or taken up for hearing until 9th March, 2005 when the writ petition was dismissed. In other words, for almost 8 years the Petitioners did not pursue CM No.7251/1997 seeking amendment of the writ petition. At this late stage, after we have dismissed the writ petition, it is not possible for us to take any notice of this application more so since the Petitioners have themselves shown no interest in this application. Notice was not even issued in the application for as long as 8 years and for this, it is only the Petitioners who have to blame themselves.
9. Even otherwise, we are also of the view that it would not be proper to entertain the request of the Petitioners to take into consideration the objections filed by the erstwhile owner of the acquired land in as much as the fact of the objections having been filed was sought to be brought to the notice of the Court more than a decade after the writ petition was filed and more than 15 years after the objections were filed. The objections were said to have been filed on or about 24th December, 1980 and a quarter of century has gone by since then and quite clearly the Petitioners have not shown any diligence in pursuing the matter of an amendment of the writ petition. At this stage, it is not possible for us to ask the Respondents to verify the existence or otherwise of these objections.
10. Under the circumstances, we decline to recall our order dated 9th March, 2005.
11. The application is dismissed.
