Delhi High Court
Pooja vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 7 August, 2018
$~66
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 7th August, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 8264/2018 and CM No. 31658/2018 (stay)
POOJA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Sunil K. Goel, Adv
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Yeeshu Jain, SC with Ms Jyoti
Tyagi, Adv for LAC
Mr Sanjay Singh, Adv for DDA
Mr Vinod Diwakar, CGSC with
Mr Sanjay Pall, Adv for R-3&5
Mr Sunder Khatri, Adv for NDMC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
Petitioner seeks a declaration that the acquisition proceedings
pertaining to the land of the petitioner comprising of 9 bigha 2 biswas in
khasra No. 14 situated in the revenue estate of Village Malcha known as
Nathu ki Bagichi/garden, Panchquian Road, New Delhi are deemed to have
lapsed as neither physical possession has been taken over nor compensation
has been tendered.
2. Counsel for the respondents who enters appearance on an advance
copy, submit that the notification in this case was issued on 21.12.1911. The
present petition is opposed on the ground of delay and laches. Counsels
further submit that no record is available for the said period and thus the
present petition should not be entertained.
3. Mr Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that he has filed
copies of certain record and documents to show his occupation.
4. In the case of Mahavir & Ors vs Union of India & Anr. SLP (C) No.
026281/2017 decided on 08.09.2017, it was held as under:-
"21. In the instant case, the claim has been made not only
belatedly, but neither the petitioners nor their previous three
generations had ever approached any of the authorities in
writing for claiming compensation. No representation had ever
been filed with any authority, none has been annexed and there
is no averment made in the petition that any such
representation had ever been filed. The claim appears not only
stale and dead but extremely clouded. This we are mentioning
as additional reasons, as such claims not only suffer from delay
and laches but courts are not supposed to entertain such
claims. Besides such claims become doubtful, cannot be
received for consideration being barred due to delay and
laches.
22. The High Court has rightly observed that such claims
cannot be permitted to be raised in the court, and cannot be
adjudicated as they are barred. The High Court has rightly
observed that such claims cannot be a subject matter of inquiry
after the lapse of a reasonable period of time and beneficial
provisions of Section 24 of the 2013 Act are not available to
such incumbents. In our opinion, Section 24 cannot revive those
claims that are dead and stale.
23. The High Court has observed that Raisina is a part of the
Lutyens zone of Delhi. It is prime of New Delhi and
Government offices etc. are located. The petitioners asked the
High Court to infer and conclude that in the absence of some
indication of the record being made available by them that their
ancestors have not ever received any compensation. How the
petitioners came to know that their ancestors had not received
compensation has not been disclosed in the petition. The High
Court has rightly declined to entertain such claims. The
protective umbrella of section 24 is not available to barred
claims. If such claims are entertained under section 24, it
would be very-very difficult to distinguish with the frivolous
claim that may be made even after tampering the records etc.
or due to non-availability of such record after so much lapse of
time. Once right had been lost due to delay and laches or
otherwise, it cannot be revived under provisions of section 24 of
the Act of 2013. The intendment of Act 2013 is not to revive
stale and dead claims and in the concluded case when rights
have been finally lost. If there is delay and laches or claim is
otherwise barred, it is not revived under section 24(2) of the
2013 Act. The provision does not operate to revive legally
barred claims.
The provision of Section 24 does not invalidate courts
judgments/orders in which right have been finally lost or due to
inaction is barred. Law does not permit examination of barred
or totally fraudulent claims. The provisions of the law cannot
be permitted to be defrauded or misused. Section 24(2) of the
2013 Act cannot be invoked in such cases. The High Court has
rightly declined to entertain the writ petitions filed by the
petitioners. It is not conceivable how the petitioners could file
such a petition in a laconic manner relating to the prime
locality at New Delhi that too for hundreds of acres with the
delay of more than 100 years."
5. There is no explanation for the delay in filing this writ petition and
even otherwise, it would be impossible for the respondents to verify the
documents which are placed on record by the petitioner.
6. We find no merit in the petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
AUGUST 07, 2018
SU
