Delhi High Court
Ravinder Gupta vs Murari Lal Gupta (Deceased) ... on 5 September, 2011
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 05.09.2011
+ CM(M) No. 1025/2011
RAVINDER GUPTA ........... Petitioner
Through: Mr. B.S. Mathur and Ms. Rajni
Singh, Advocates.
Versus
MURARI LAL GUPTA (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.
..........Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1 This petition has assailed the order of the Additional District
Judge dated 07.08.2008 vide which the compensation on a Reference
Petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act had been
awarded in favour of the petitioner Murari Lal Gupta. The petitioner
before this Court is Ravinder Gupta; he is the legal representative of
one Jagan Nath Gupta who claimed himself to be the sole proprietor
of Janta Housing Company; in the petition it has been averred that
Jagan Nath Gupta had challenged the acquisition proceedings which
writ petition had been dismissed in the year 1984; Land Acquisition
Collector had pronounced his Award on 19.09.1986; Jagan Nath
Gupta had received compensation on 24.10.1987. On specific query
put to learned counsel for the petitioner, he has submitted that Jagan
Nath Gupta had filed a Reference under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act; that Reference was admittedly not pursued and no
order has been passed on that Reference. The contention before this
Court is that Murari Lal Gupta has received enhanced compensation
qua 1/50th share in the compensation which was assessed in the
name of Janta Housing Company; his contention is that the court
below has exercised a jurisdiction which was not vested with it and
such an order could not have been passed. This order was admittedly
passed on 07.08.2008. Contention of the petitioner is that he did not
know about this order till the year 2011. Besides the fact that this
explanation is neither cogent and nor satisfactory, record further
shows that a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.4128/2011 had been filed
on this very ground which writ petition has been disposed of on
03.06.2011. The High Court in this order of 03.06.2011 had noted
that the father of the petitioner has sought a Reference under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act; the Court had noted that
since the record is not available, it is not possible to determine
whether in fact the father i.e. Jagan Nath Gupta had filed a
Reference or not; the Court had noted the enormous delay of 21
years in preferring the petition; as such no substantive relief had
been granted to the petitioner except for a direction to the Authority
to locate the record to determine as to whether the father of the
petitioner namely Jagan Nath Gupta; this contention filed a
Reference under Section 18 of the said Act or not. Grievance of the
petitioner in the present petition is that enhanced compensation has
been passed qua the Reference of Murari Lal Gupta which was also
the subject matter of W.P.(C) No.4128/2011 which was disposed of
on 03.06.2011 (para 1 of the order dated 3.6.2011) Learned counsel
for the petitioner has failed to show as to how the Reference Petition
disposed of on 07.08.2008 was an order passed without jurisdiction
so as to be the subject matter of an assailment under Article 227 of
the Constitution and that too after a lapse of three years. Issues had
been framed and after the evidence had been led by the respective
parties, the impugned order was passed; claim of Murari Lal Gupta
qua 1/50th share has been established. This order as noted supra is
dated 07.08.2008. Locus standi of the petitioner is not discernable.
Present petition is not maintainable.
2 Dismissed.
3. Order dasti.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
SEPTEMBER 05, 2011/a
