Delhi High Court
Jeet Singh & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 24 October, 2017
$~47
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 24th October, 2017
+ W.P. (C.) No.11538/2015
JEET SINGH & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through None.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Mr. Jitendra
Kumar Tripathi, Mr. Vipul
Agrawal, Mr. Anshuman
Nayak, Advs. for UOI.
Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing
Counsel with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi,
Adv. for LAC/L&B.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. None is present on behalf of the petitioners despite the matter being
passed over once and called a second time.
2. Petitioners have filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of
Constitution of India for issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction
in the nature of certiorari, mandamus or any other direction to quash
the impugned award No.30/1911-1912 of village Malcha, New Delhi
and notification No.775 dated 21.12.1911 issued under Sections 6 and
7 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
3. Counsel for respondent no.4/LAC submits that a reading of the present
writ petition would show that the petitioners have sought a direction in
respect of the land acquired in the year 1911 under Award
No.30/1911-1912 of village Malcha, New Delhi, which has lapsed by
the operation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013. Learned counsel further submits that the present case is
fully covered by the decisions rendered by the Coordinate Bench of
this Court in the case of Mahavir and others Vs. Union of India, W.P.
(C) No.129 of 2017 dated 10.04.2017, Sajjan Singh and others Vs.
Union of India, W.P. (C) No.9233 of 2014 dated 02.05.2017 and
Mukesh and others Vs. Union of India, W.P. (C) No.7532 of 2015
dated 02.05.2017.
4. Learned counsel has placed reliance on paragraphs-4 and 5 in the case
of Mahavir (supra). It reads as under :-
"4. The question is perhaps a unique one - i.e. the
parties claim to be aggrieved to approach this Court,
waking up like Rip Van Winkle in Indian parlance or
what may be called „Kumbkarna‟ lapse of time. In other
words, is it open to the petitioner or a set of petitioners
to resuscitate grievance several generations later to
claim the protection of a later law? Such claims were
never under contemplation when the acquisition was
resorted to.
5. It is not disputed that the lands over which the
petitioner lays claim were a part of Raisina village
which was acquired and on which much of lutyens Delhi
has been build. In these circumstances as to whether
indeed the petitioners‟ ancestors were paid
compensation or not can be made a subject of enquiry
over 104 years later having regard to a later enactment
and right which flow directly from it. In the opinion of
the Court the award clearly has to be negative. The
petitioners are asking this Court to infer and conclude
that in the absence of some indication from the records
made available by them, that their ancestors did not ever
receive any compensation. No contemporary record in
the form of letters, protest by them or any other
communication stating that compensation was not
disbursed or reference to civil proceedings for release of
the amounts or seeking decree have been relied upon by
the petitioners. In these circumstances if the petitioners
are to be allowed to raise such grievances the courts
would be open to claims from each succeeding
generation, which may say that the previous generation
had not received their just dues. Such claims cannot be
adjudicated, as they are barred."
5. Since none is present to press this petition and in view of the
fact that the same is covered by the decision rendered by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Mahavir (supra), the
writ petition is dismissed.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.
OCTOBER 24, 2017
ck
