Delhi High Court
Mange Ram & Anr Thr Gpa Holder vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 October, 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: October 09, 2018
Judgment delivered on: October 22, 2018
+ LPA 442/2016 & CM No. 28536/2016
MANGE RAM & ANR THR GPA HOLDER
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. L.B. Rai, Adv.
Mr. Syeed Kamran, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vivek Goyal, CGSC for
UOI
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing
Counsel, Ms. Jyoti Tyagi,
Mr. Govind Kumar, Advs. for
L&B Department / GNCTD
AND
+ LPA 717/2016 & CM Nos. 47597/2016, 47599/2016,
47839/2016
MANGE RAM (DECEASED) THR LEGAL HEIRS & ANR
..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. L.B. Rai, Adv.
Mr. Syeed Kamran, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
..... Respondents
LPA 442/2016 and connected matter Page 1 of 30
Through: Mr. Vivek Goyal, CGSC for
UOI
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing
Counsel, Ms. Jyoti Tyagi,
Mr. Govind Kumar, Advs. for
L&B Department / GNCTD
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
JUDGMENT
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
CM No. 47599/2016 (for delay) in LPA 717/2016
This is an application filed by the appellant seeking
condonation of 160 days delay in filing the present appeal.
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is
allowed, the delay of 160 days in filing the present appeal is
condoned. Application stands disposed of.
CM No. 47839/2016 (for legal heirs) in LPA 717/2016
This is an application filed by Ashwani Kumar S/o Late
Shri Mange Ram for himself and on behalf of the other legal
heirs of Late Shri Mange Ram for including them as legal heirs of
Late Shri Mange Ram for the purpose of filing the appeal.
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is
allowed. Application stands disposed of.
LPA 442/2016 & LPA 717/2016
1. These two appeals under Section 10 of the High Court
Act have been filed by the appellants challenging the order dated
November 26, 2015 (corrected and released on May 25, 2016)
whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition
being W.P. (C) 6313/2010 filed by Late Shri Mange Ram / Shri
Ram Mehar.
2. Even though, one writ petition, being W.P. (C) 6313/2010
was filed and decided by the learned Single Judge along with CM
No.12515/2010, two appeals have been filed against the order
dated November 26, 2015. These appeals have been filed by one
Shri Sachchidanand Rai said to be the General Power of Attorney
holder of Late Shri Mange Ram and Shri Ram Mehar, being LPA
442/2016 and the second one by Shri Ram Mehar and by the
legal heirs of Shri Mange Ram, being LPA 717/2016.
3. The facts and the issues being common, and the appeals
arises from an order dated November 26, 2015 they are being
decided by this common order. The facts as noted from the
record are that Late Shri Mange Ram (died on February 23, 2016)
and Shri Ram Mehar are displaced persons and in lieu of their
properties / land left behind in Pakistan, the Ministry of
Rehabilitation, Government of India on September 30, 1966
issued them a 'Sanad' bearing No.D-914(Hadbust No.22) with
respect to acquired evacuee land admeasuring 71 bighas and 5
biswas in Village Jharoda Mazra, Burari, Delhi.
4. It is their case that the physical possession of the said land
could not be handed over to them by the respondents, since the
said land was in illegal / unauthorized occupation of others. They
were at that time given to understand that legal proceedings with
regard to the said land are pending and they should await the
conclusion of the said proceedings. According to them, the
proceedings were decided in favour of the occupants, who were
declared as Bhumidars of those lands. Vide letter dated April 20,
1989, the work relating to administration, management and
disposal of the remaining urban evacuee built up property, urban
evacuee plots, rural evacuee agricultural land etc. was transferred
by the Government of India to erstwhile Delhi Administration.
5. It was their case that from 1974 till 2005, they kept on
visiting the Evacuee Property (EP) Cell for redressal of their
grievance and also made written representations for allotment of
alternative land somewhere else in Delhi, but to no avail. That
vide official note dated May 19, 2005, it was proposed that some
other lands available and belonging to the Custodian of Evacuee
Property be allotted to them. According to them, on examination
of official records it was found that six parcels of land in revenue
Village Civil Station, Sheikh Sarai, Rithala, Haiderpur and
Hameerpur total admeasuring 65.09 bighas were available.
Accordingly, vide letter dated June 28, 2005, the Managing
Officer, EP Cell, GNCTD informed the appellants of allotment of
six parcels of land admeasuring 65.09 bighas and asked the
appellants to meet the officers in that regard.
6. It was the case of Late Shri Mange Ram / Shri Ram
Mehar in the writ petition, that they agreed to accept the said
lands in lieu of 71 bighas and 5 biswas of land earlier allotted to
them and requested for a new Sanad and physical possession
thereof. It is noted from the impugned order that certain steps
were taken in that respect as is clear from the office notings
placed on record but in the meanwhile, the Displaced Persons
Claim and Other Laws Repeal Act, 2005 (Repeal Act) was
notified on September 06, 2005 repealing the Displaced Persons
(Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. It was their case
that on December 22, 2006 they lodged a complaint with the
Public Grievances Commission for not getting formal possession
and allotment of the land; who also found in favour of the
appellants but observed that since there was no saving clause in
the Repeal Act, no direction could be given.
7. In substance, the allotment of 65.09 bighas of land made
in favour of Late Shri Mange Ram and Shri Ram Mehar did not
fructify.
8. The Union of India had filed a counter affidavit before
the learned Single Judge, in which it was stated that the work
regarding the administration, management and disposal of
evacuee, urban and rural properties and lands situated in Delhi
was transferred to Delhi Administration in 1989 and at present
GNCTD, is managing all the affairs and that vide notification
dated September 06, 2005, the Displaced Persons (Compensation
and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 has been repealed.
9. The GNCTD in its counter affidavit has inter alia pleaded
that Late Shri Mange Ram and Shri Ram Mehar have not
approached the Court with clean hands and have suppressed
material facts and made wrong and misleading statements.
According to the GNCTD the appellants had taken actual
physical possession of the 71 bighas and 5 biswas of land allotted
to them about four decades ago and they have sold the land to the
present occupants thereof or their predecessors. They have given
the particulars of the documents at the time of allotment of land
which depicts that the land is being described as vacant. Late
Shri Mange Ram and Shri Ram Mehar have acknowledged
allotment and transfer of land in their favour. They have made no
grievance of land or any part thereof being encroached. They
have acknowledged the possession of land and satisfaction of
their claims. Late Shri Mange Ram and Shri Ram Mehar, after a
gap of four decades since the last communication with the Office
of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner, had stated that there
was encroachment on the said 71 bighas and 5 biswas of land and
that they could not take possession thereof.
10. According to GNCTD, the issuance of Sanad is the
culmination of the entire process, beginning from filing of claim
for evacuee property. That after a gap of 38 years since the last
letter to the Managing Officer, Delhi, Late Shri Mange Ram and
Shri Ram Mehar came up with a fresh dispute in 2005 that there
were illegal occupants on the land. They after accepting the
Sanad, cannot contend so and even if there are any illegal
occupants, it is they, who have to take steps for their removal. In
other words, the responsibility of the Evacuee Property Cell /
Office of the Settlement Commissioner abates on the issuance of
Sanad. If Shri Mange Ram and Shri Ram Mehar were
dissatisfied, they should have agitated the same before the
issuance of Sanad, so that all the claims made by them were
taken care of.
11. It was stated by the GNCTD that the repeal of the
Displaced Persons Act is irrelevant. They emphatically stated
that the actual physical possession of the land was taken at the
site on July 8/9, 1962. The issuance of Sanad on September 30,
1966 implies that Late Shri Mange Ram / Shri Ram Mehar
accepted the land allotted to them and the title of the land has
been transferred to their names. That all the subsequent disputes
are extraneous to the issue; they have denied the visits of Late
Shri Mange Ram and Shri Ram Mehar to their office between
1974 to 2005. The letter dated May 04, 2005 is the first
communication, after a gap of 38 years. No new rights were
created in favour of Late Shri Mange Ram / Shri Ram Mehar in
the year 2005.
12. In the rejoinder before the learned Single Judge, Late Shri
Mange Ram and Shri Ram Mehar have denied having taken
physical possession of the land in the year 1962. They have
relied on the documents received through the medium of Right to
Information Act, 2005. They have claimed that a decision was
taken in the year 2005 to allot alternate land to them but the same
could not be fructified owing to the Repeal of the Act. That after
the filing of the petition before the learned Single Judge, vide
notification dated August 19, 2010, powers have been delegated
for disposal of pending claims under the Displaced Persons Act,
notwithstanding repeal thereof. They have denied that the grant
of Sanad is the culmination of the process. They had pleaded that
they were working in the Indian Army and posted outside Delhi
since 1965 till January, 2002 when they retired and hence could
not take any steps, initiating the litigation.
13. The GNCTD in the sur-rejoinder had denied the receipt of
various letters on different dates ranging from 1967 onwards. It
is stated that the Repeal Act and the modification thereof by
notification dated August 19, 2010 only applies to cases which
were pending finality. They have also stated that on September
30, 1980 Late Shri Mange Ram and Shri Ram Mehar wrote to the
Deputy Commissioner, of the erstwhile Delhi Administration for
correction of revenue records in which they have referred to the
occupants of the land as their tenants. Therefore, Late Shri
Mange Ram and Shri Ram Mehar were earning the fruits of the
land which was allotted to them and with respect whereof Sanad
has been executed in their favour. The learned Single Judge has
rejected the writ petition by holding as under:-
(i) That the petition has been filed by the petitioners for the
first time in the year 2010, notwithstanding the transfer of title
in the land to them in the year 1966 on the ground that they
have not been delivered possession of the land, which by its
inherent nature a factual plea and adjudication whereof cannot
be made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India;
(ii) There is an admission by the learned senior counsel for
the petitioners in the writ petition under instructions, during
the hearing that Late Shri Mange Ram had written the letter
dated September 30, 1980 wherein it is stated that the
occupants are his tenants. The aforesaid proves that in the year
1980 Late Shri Mange Ram had admitted having been put into
possession of the land of which the Sanad was executed in
their favour in the year 1966 and it also proves that they
further admitted that they had allowed their land to be
cultivated by tenants on yearly basis.
(iii) The letter dated September 30, 1980 clearly falsifies the
stand of the petitioners i.e. Late Shri Mange Ram and Shri
Ram Mehar, disentitling them, from any equitable relief under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise, if the
Sanad was executed in their favour in the year 1966 and had
not been put in possession thereof, the claim of Late Shri
Mange Ram / Shri Ram Mehar for the first time in 2005 i.e.
after nearly 30 years, for land in lieu thereof was also highly
belated.
(iv) Anyone not given possession of the land in spite of being
conferred with the title thereof is expected to act with
promptitude. The case of Shri Mange Ram and Shri Ram
Mehar having made representations therefore, from 1967 till
2005 also, is highly suspect and at best also raises disputed
question of fact.
(v) The file notings and / or the letter dated August 31, 2005
could not have ignited a claim which was already dead.
(vi) Their claim as displaced persons and which stood
satisfied on execution of Sanad in the year 1966, had no new
right to allotment of any land in the year 2005 and which claim
can be agitated by way of this writ petition in the year 2010.
(vii) Even assuming Late Shri Mange Ram and Shri Ram
Mehar could not pursue their claim owing to the Repeal Act of
the year 2005, the petition filed in the year 2010 i.e. after five
years therefrom would also be barred by delay and laches.
(viii)Any officer of the Government, even if makes admission
of a claim against the Government and which claim is
otherwise barred by law / limitation, thus not valid and cannot
bind the Government therewith.
(ix) The learned Single Judge had expressed surprise that the
conduct of the officers, who instead of protecting the interest
of the State / Government intended to part with valuable land
worth hundreds of crores of rupees, obviously detrimental to
public interest and by way of enriching the petitioners.
(x) The principle enshrined in Section 18 of the Limitation
Act would have applicability, only if acknowledgement is
made prior to expiry of the limitation period.
14. On an examination of the provisions of the Displaced
Persons Act and the Rules made thereunder, the learned Single
Judge was of the view that the acquisition under Section 12 of the
evacuee property is free from all encumbrances. Thus, the lands
which were allotted and with respect whereto Sanad was
executed in favour of Late Shri Mange Ram and Shri Ram
Mehar, no right or claim of any person with respect thereto
persists or survives for Late Shri Mange Ram and Shri Ram
Mehar to say that others had made claim as Bhumidars with
respect to the said lands.
15. He also concluded, the remedy for Late Shri Mange Ram
/ Shri Ram Mehar, even if were not put in possession of the land
in spite of conveyance of title thereof in their favour, cannot be to
seek alternate land but only to recover possession of the same
land or seek compensation. The appellants cannot after 38 years,
without having annulled the transfer, claim another plot of land in
lieu thereof.
16. Mr. Ravi Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellants would submit that despite issuing Sanad bearing No.
D-914 (Hadbust No.22) allotting the land admeasuring 71 bighas
and 5 biswas in Village Jharoda Mazra, Burari, Delhi the physical
possession of the complete land could not be handed over to Late
Shri Mange Ram and Shri Ram Mehar. Since there were illegal /
unauthorized occupants on the same, Late Shri Mange Ram and
Shri Ram Mehar had made applications to the respondents
requesting, the possession of the land be given to them through
police aid, but to no avail.
17. According to Mr. Gupta as the proceedings with regard to
land allotted to them in the said village were pending, they were
asked to wait till their conclusion. However, even those
proceedings were decided in favour of the occupants, who were
declared as Bhumidars of the said land, as is clear from the
proceedings of the Revenue Assistant dated August 29, 1966 and
January 09, 1967 (at pages 364 and 318 to the paper book). He
referred to the fact that on March 07, 1964, December 18, 1964
and June 22, 1966 the appellants written protest letters to the
respondents wherein they had demanded alternate land in lieu of
allotted land under Sanad bearing No. D-914 dated September
30, 1966.
18. According to him, even thereafter between the years 1973
till 1999, Late Shri Mange Ram and Shri Ram Mehar have been
pursuing with the respondents through written communications
and through personal meetings for redressal of their grievances.
In this regard, he has drawn our attention to page 318 onwards of
the paper book, unfortunately, despite following it up for such a
long period, the grievances of Late Shri Mange Ram and Shri
Ram Mehar could not be answered. He stated that it was only in
the year 2004 / 2005 as is clear from the notings in the file as
shown to us procured by the appellants through the process of
RTI, the respondents / GNCTD initiated the action for allotment
of alternate land in lieu of the land allotted vide Sanad dated
September 30, 1966 and in furtherance thereof had sought
information from Tehsildars of various villages i.e. Sheikh Sarai,
Haiderpur and Hameerpur etc. about the availability of land to be
allotted to Shri Mange Ram and Shri Ram Mehar.
19. According to him, unfortunately, in view of the Repeal
Act, no decision could be taken on allotment of alternative land.
During the course of his submissions, he conceded to the fact that
there was no order of the Lt. Governor in the year 2005, for
allotment of land in lieu of land allotted in the year 1966.
According to him, Late Shri Mange Ram and Shri Ram Mehar
have made their claim to the land, not on the basis of the Sanad
issued in the year 1966 but in terms of the process initiated by the
respondents in the year 2005 acknowledging the fact that
possession of the land in terms of the Sanad dated September 30,
1966 had not been given to Late Shri Mange Ram and Shri Ram
Mehar. He also stated that the Repeal of the Act would not effect
the case of the appellants / Shri Mange Ram and Shri Ram
Mehar, as the process had been initiated much before the Repeal
Act came into effect.
20. He has also drawn our attention to a circular dated
September 22, 2008 of the Ministry of Home Affairs, wherein it
is clarified that the Repeal Act, 2005 would not effect the
disposal of certain cases including unsatisfied verified claims
filed under the Displaced Persons Act, in which right has accrued
or has been acquired and which were pending as on September
06, 2005, the date on which the said Act and other related Acts
were repealed. According to him, even in terms of the
clarification given by the Ministry of Home Affairs, nothing
precluded the respondents to consider the claim of Late Shri
Mange Ram and Shri Ram Mehar to allot the land in their favour
by continuing the process already initiated in the year 2004/2005,
as is clear from the note sheets. That apart, he also submitted that
even in the year 2010, the Ministry of Home Affairs had issued a
notification dated August 19, 2010, whereby the Ministry of
Home Affairs has delegated the powers to the officers of the
Government of NCT of Delhi under various provisions of the
Repeal Act to enable them to dispose of pending outstanding
claims. In other words, it is his submission that the Repeal Act
had the effect of respondents taking forward all the pending
claims under the Displaced Persons Act which included the
claims of Shri Mange Ram and Shri Ram Mehar, who admittedly
were not given the possession of the land pursuant to the Sanad
dated September 30, 1966.
21. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the Government of NCT of Delhi would
submit that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the
petition filed by Late Shri Mange Ram and Shri Ram Mehar as
the same was clearly hit by delay and laches. According to him,
the petition has been filed with ulterior motives despite Late Shri
Mange Ram and Shri Ram Mehar have taken the actual physical
possession of the land allotted in terms of Sanad dated September
30, 1966 to their complete satisfaction.
22. He has also drawn our attention to pages 171 and 173 of
the paper books in support of his submission. That apart, he has
drawn our attention to page 176 of the paper book which
according to him is a decision of the Managing Officer, Delhi, the
Competent Authority under the Act directing the entry of the
names of Late Shri Mange Ram and Shri Ram Mehar in the
record with regard to 71 bigha and 5 biswas of land, i.e mutating
the land in their favour when, no issue was raised by them of not
having possession of the land. In fact, it was conceded that the
land was allotted and possession thereof is in their possession.
He also stated, the handing over of the land is also clear from the
proceedings dated July 16, 1962 page 180 of the paper book,
which also depicts the factum of demarcation having been made
in the presence of Shri Mange Ram.
23. That apart, he has also drawn our attention to page 182 of
the paper book to show that the correction was made in the record
whereby the name of third person Mr. Mehar Singh was
removed. In the said proceedings, it was clearly recorded that the
possession of the land has been handed over to Late Shri Mange
Ram and Shri Ram Mehar. He heavily relied upon the
proceedings dated September 30, 1966 of Managing Officer /
Settlement Officer Jamnagar House, New Delhi which reads as
under:
"Shri Manga Ram & Ram Mehar Singh ss/o Prabhu
Delhi colonist were allotted 10 St. acres & 10 ½
units of agrl. land equal to 71 bighas 5 biswas
comprising of Khasra Nos.21/16 min (3-10),
21/17/1(2-3), 21/17/2(1-22), 21/18(4-14), 21/19(2-
17), 21/20(4-14), 21/22(5-9), 21/23(4-16), 21/24(4-
16), 24/6 min (0-14), 23/25(4-4), 21/25/1(1-14),
21/25/2(2-2), 22/1/2(2-8), 23/4(4-6), 23/5(4-16),
23/7(4-6), 23/14(4-6), 23/17/2 min (1-0), 23/17/2
min (3-2), & 23/24(3-16) in village Jharoda Mazar
Barari on 4.5.61. The satisfaction of their
remaining land claim. Possession of the allotted
areas was delivered to them on 8.7.62. No land rent
is due from them. In view of the above facts a sanad
of permanent allotment be issued in their favour and
copy of this order should also be endorsed to the
Tehsildar, Delhi for incorporation in the Revenue
record."
24. According to Mr. Sanjay Poddar, on issuance of Sanad
which has been accepted by Late Shri Mange Ram and Shri Ram
Mehar, the issue with regard to the possession of the land stood
closed. He submitted that Late Shri Mange Ram and Shri Ram
Mehar should have explored other legal avenues to get the
occupants removed from the land. In other words, the
responsibility of the respondents abates on the issuance of Sanad.
If Late Shri Mange Ram and Shri Ram Mehar had any issue of
occupants being there on the land they should have agitated the
same before accepting the Sanad. It was his submission that the
reliance placed by the appellants on the notings of the department
would not confer any right to the appellants as the same are only
expression of views by the officers which have not culminated in
a decision of the Competent Authority i.e. Lt. Governor, who till
date has not passed any order directing the allotment of land to
Late Shri Mange Ram and Shri Ram Mehar / appellants. In this
regard he would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Delhi Union of Journalists Cooperative House Building Society
Limited and Others vs. Union of India and Others, and one
judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Dolumal Sunderdas
vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. AIR 1971 MP 127.
25. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are
of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the
writ petition. There is no dispute that the proceedings dated July
08, 1962 and July 16, 1962, records in clear terms that the
possession of the land having been taken by Late Shri Mange
Ram. The proceedings dated July 16, 1962 also record, a limited
correction be made with regard to removing the name of Shri
Meher Singh. There is nothing on record to show that Late Shri
Mange Ram and Shri Ram Mehar did raise the issue of presence
of occupants on the land or complete possession of the land has
not been given. Even if, there was an issue that the land was
under the illegal occupation, nothing precluded Late Shri Mange
Ram and Shri Ram Mehar refusing to accept the Sanad issued to
them. Even assuming that Late Shri Mange Ram and Shri Ram
Mehar had raised the issue of the land under occupation still they
were within their right to seek judicial remedy as available to
them at that particular point of time.
26. It was contended by Mr. Ravi Gupta that between the
years 1973 till 1999 Late Shri Mange Ram and Shri Ram Mehar
were pursuing their grievance with the department, both through
written communications and meetings and as such there was
delay; we may state here that the department has disputed the
receipts of the communications as referred to by Mr. Ravi Gupta
during his submissions, still it is a settled law that continuous
representations shall not extend the limitation or give fresh cause
of action, for the petitioner to file writ petition after almost forty
years. We may refer to the latest judgment of the Supreme Court
in the case of Mahavir and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2013
(15) SCC 614, wherein the Supreme Court has, in paras 12 to 16
held as under:
"12. In the instant case, the case is liable to be
dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. By no
stretch of the imagination, the principles enumerated
in Section 24 of the Act of 2013 can be permitted to
invoke. We are not inclined to entertain such a stale
claim after 105 years of acquisition.
13. The catena of decisions of this court indicates
that delay and laches are enough to destroy the
remedy as laid down by this court in Tamil Nadu
Housing Board, Chennai v. M. Meiyappan & Ors.
(2010) 14 SCC 309, and Jasveer Singh & Anr. v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2017) 6 SCC787.
14. In U.P. State Jal Nigam & Anr. v. Jaswant Singh
& Anr. (2006) 11 SCC 464 this court has observed
that in determining whether there has been delay so
as to amount to laches in case petitioner/claimant is
aware of the violation of the right, where a remedy
by his conduct tantamount to waiver of it or where,
by his conduct or neglect, though not waiving the
remedy, he has put the other party in a position in
which it would not be reasonable to place him if the
remedy were afterwards to be asserted. In such cases
lapse of time and delay are most material. Upon
these considerations rests the doctrine of laches.
15. The Constitution Bench of this court
in Rabindranath Bose & Ors. v. Union of India &
Ors. (1970) 1 SCC 84 has observed:
"32 ...we are of the view that no relief should be
given to petitioners who, without any reasonable
explanation, approach this Court under Article
32 of the Constitution after inordinate delay. The
highest Court in this land has been given Original
Jurisdiction to entertain petitions under Article
32 of the Constitution. It could not have been the
intention that this Court would go into stale
demands after a lapse of years. It is said
that Article 32is itself a guaranteed right. So it is,
but it does not follow from this that it was the
intention of the Constitution makers that this
Court should discard all principles and grant relief
in petitions filed after inordinate delay."
(emphasis supplied)
16. This court in Dharappa v. Bijapur Co-operative
Milk Producers Societies Union Ltd. (2007) 9 SCC
109 considered the question of delay and laches in the
matter of raising the dispute under Industrial Dispute
Act, 1947. Though no limitation period is prescribed
under the Industrial Disputes Act, this court has held
that if on account of delay, a dispute has become stale
or ceases to exist, the reference should be rejected. It
is also held that lapse of time results in losing the
remedy and the right as well. The delay would be
fatal if it has resulted in material evidence relevant to
adjudication being lost or rendered unavailable.
When belated claims are considered as stale and non-
existing for the purpose of refusing or rejecting a
reference under section 10(1)(c) or in spite of no
period of limitation is prescribed this court laid that it
will be illogical to hold that the amendment to
the I.D. Act inserting section 10(4-a) prescribing the
time limit of six months should be interpreted as
reviving all stale and dead claims. This court has
further observed that section 10(4-A) clearly requires
that a workman who wants to directly approach the
Labour Court, should do so within six months from
the date of communication of the order. This court
has laid down that when a new remedy or relief is
provided by a statute, such a transitional provision is
made to ensure that persons who are given a special
right, do not lose it for want of adequate time to
enforce it, though they have a cause of action or
right as on the date when the new remedy or relief
comes into effect. This court has further observed
that section 10(4-A) does not, therefore, revive non-
existing or stale or dead claims but only ensures that
claims which were live, to be filed, by applying the
six-month rule in section 10(4-A)."
x x x x
27. We agree with the conclusion of the learned Single Judge,
that any person not given possession of the land in spite of being
conferred with the title shall act with promptitude to get the
possession.
28. That apart the learned Single Judge noted the letter dated
September 30, 1980, wherein an admission has been made by the
Late Shri Mange Ram that the occupants are the tenants; which
means Late Shri Mange Ram and Shri Ram Mehar were in
possession of the land. Even if, the occupants on the land had
sought declaration of they being Bhumidars, it is not understood,
why Late Shri Mange Ram and Shri Ram Mehar, did not seek
their impleadment in the proceedings or even challenged the
declaration against them in the given facts.
29. There is nothing in the provisions of the Displaced
Persons Act, which suggest, if after the issuance of Sanad (which
signifies, title to the land), a fresh process can start for allotment
of alternate land. In this regard, we reproduce para 38 of the
impugned judgment wherein the learned Single Judge had held as
under:
"38. Even if it were to be believed that though by the
Sanad of the year 1966, the land admeasuring 71
bighas and 5 biswas stood transferred to the
petitioners but the possession thereof was not delivered
by the Government of India to the petitioners, the
senior counsel for the petitioners was unable to
explain, as to how the same would entitle the
petitioners to claim alternative land. The remedy, if
any of the petitioners for such a situation was to claim
against the Government of India as the transferor to
deliver possession and which claim could have been
made within the period of limitation provided therefor
and/or to have the transfer annulled or to claim back
the sale consideration i.e. compensation in lieu of
which the land was given to the petitioners. The
petitioners cannot after 36 years, without having
annulled the transfer, claim another plot of land in lieu
thereof. Supreme Court, in Vimal Chand
Ghevarchand Jain Vs. Ramakant Eknath Jajoo
(2009) 5 SCC 713 held that right of possession over a
property is a facet of title; soon as a deed of sale is
registered, the title passes to the vendee; the vendor, in
terms of the stipulations made in the deed of sale, is
bound to deliver possession of the property sold; if he
does not do so, he makes himself liable for damages.
Here, not only is there no stipulation in the Sanad that
the grantor thereof will deliver vacant, physical
possession of the land with respect whereto it was
executed, to the petitioners but on the contrary the
reading thereof shows that the transfer was complete,
with the right, title and interest acquired by the Central
Government in the property being transferred to the
petitioners, thereby also vesting in the petitioners the
right to recover possession from whosoever may have
been in possession of the land."
30. So, the process initiated by the department in the years
2004 / 2005 for the alleged allotment of land in favour of Late
Shri Mange Ram and Shri Ram Mehar was without authority of
law and in any case the same did not culminate in a decision of
the Competent Authority.
31. Mr. Sanjay Poddar is justified in relying upon the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Delhi Union of Journalists
Cooperative House Building Society Limited and Others (supra)
wherein in para 7, the Supreme Court has held as under:
"7. In furtherance of the undertaking given by the
counsel, Vice- Chairman, DDA considered the
representation of the appellants and passed order
dated 3.4.2006 whereby he rejected the appellants'
prayer for cancellation of the allotment made in
favour of respondent No.4 on the ground that the
writ petition and the special leave petition filed by
the appellants for quashing the allotment had
already been dismissed by the Delhi High Court and
the Supreme Court, respectively."
32. That apart, we also agree with the learned Single Judge,
that even the filing of the writ petition in the year 2010, on the
basis of happenings in the year 2005, shall also be hit by delay
and laches.
33. Even otherwise, much before any decision could be taken
by the Competent Authority, the Act stood repealed. Even if
clarification has been issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs that
the Repeal Act would not effect disposal of unsatisfied verified
claims filed under the Displaced Persons Act in which right has
accrued or has been acquired and which are pending as on
September 06, 2005, the date on which Acts were repealed, the
case in hand in which the Sanad has been issued, the clarification
shall not be applicable, as it is not a case where unsatisfied claims
are said to be pending.
34. That even otherwise, we also agree with the conclusion of
the learned Single Judge that the question whether actual physical
possession was taken over remains a seriously disputed question
of fact which cannot be amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The relevant para
22 of the impugned order dated November 26, 2015 reads as
under:
22. Supreme Court recently in State of Assam Vs.
Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma (2015) 5 SCC 321 also
observed that "the question whether actual physical
possession was taken over remains a seriously
disputed question of fact which is not amenable to a
satisfactory determination by the High Court in
proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. ......Remand to the High Court to have a
finding on the question of dispossession, therefore,
does not appear to us to be a viable solution".
35. It must be held that the impugned judgment is a well-
reasoned judgment, and the same is liable to be upheld. It is
ordered accordingly.
36. The appeals are dismissed. No costs.
CM No. 28536/2016 (for direction) in LPA 442/2016
CM No. 47597/2016 (for direction) in LPA 717/2016
Dismissed as infructuous.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
CHIEF JUSTICE
OCTOBER 22, 2018/aky
