Delhi High Court
Satish Kumar Modi vs Land Acquisition ... on 7 January, 2019
$~55
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9547/2018 & CM Appl.No. 37138/2018 (stay)
SATISH KUMAR MODI ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Pankaj Vivek & Mr. Paresh
Shreenath, Advocates
versus
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR/A.D.M. AND ORS.
..... Respondents
Through Mr. Rajneesh Sharma, Advocate for
Respondent/LAC/L & B Deptt.
Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Advocate for Respondent/UOI
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing counsel & Mr.
Tanmay Yadav, Advocates for Respondent/DDA
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR
JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 07.01.2019
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:
1. The prayers in the present petition read as under:-
"a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or any
other or similar writ or order thereby declaring that the Award No.
23/1987-88 dated 17.06.1987 w.r.t. lands bearing Khasra No.'s.
407(4-17) and 408(8-03) situated in the revenue estate of Village
Maidan Garhi, Distt. South-Delhi, New Delhi as having lapsed upon
coming into effect of "The Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 (NO. 30 OF 2013)"; and
b) Direct the officials of respondent no. 3 to correct the revenue
records accordingly; and
Pass such other and /further orders as deemed fit and proper in facts
of the present case, in favour of the applicant/petitioner."
2. According to the narration in the petition, notification under Section 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 („LAA‟) was issued on 25th November, 1980
followed by declaration under Section 6 LAA on 18 th June, 1985. The
assertion in the writ petition is that the acquisition proceedings which
culminated in the Award No.23/1987-88 dated 17th June, 1987 were
challenged in a number of writ petitions filed in this Court. By a judgment
dated 18th November, 1988 in Balak Ram Gupta vs. Union of India and the
judgment dated 15th May, 1989 in Balbir Singh vs. Union of India, the
aforementioned acquisition proceedings in regard to eleven villages
including village Maidan Garhi were quashed.
3. It is further stated that the Petitioner also filed WP(C) No. 41/1986 in this
Court which came to be decided on 26th September, 1990 in similar fashion
following the aforementioned judgments. It is stated that due to a mistake in
the description of the land, Khasra Nos. 407 and 408 were not included in
the earlier Writ Petition No. 41/1986. It is then asserted in para 4 (iv) of the
petition as under:-
"The petitioner as also all other persons whose lands were affected
were under the impression that the entire land acquisition proceedings
stood quashed as the declaration under Section 6 stood quashed."
4. It is further averred in para (v) as under:-
"That in pursuance of the said award dated 17.06.1987, symbolic
possession of the Kh. No.‟s 407 & 408 was allegedly taken over by
way of Possession proceedings (Kabza Karyawahi) on 16.07.1987.
This possession proceeding was not regarding actual takeover of
physical possession as the petitioner continues to enjoy peaceful
physical possession of Kh. No. 407 & 408 from date of purchase till
date."
5. According to the Petitioner, he thereafter applied for sanction to build a
farm house on Khasra No. 407, 408, 420 (min) 418 & 419. Building plans
were approved on 7th December, 1989. In 1992, he applied for revalidation
of the plans. It is stated that in reply to the letter of the MCD to enquire if
there was any objection from the land acquisition point of view, the
Tehsildar replied by letter dated 24th July, 1992 that the land in question was
not notified under Sections 4 & 6 of the LAA. It is asserted in para 4 (ix)
that compensation amount assessed for Khasra No. 407 & 408 was "never
tendered or paid to the Petitioner as the Respondents also believed that the
land acquisition stood quashed."
6. It is then stated that after the 2013 Act came into force on 1 st January,
2014, Column 21 of the Khasra Girdawari in respect of Khasra Nos. 407 and
408 recorded that possession had been taken over by the L & B Department
on 28th August, 1987. In Column 4, the name of the Petitioner was
mentioned and crops were shown to be cultivated.
7. When the Petitioner applied to the Tehsildar inquiring about the status of
the lands, the Tehsildar informed him about possession having been taken
over way back on 16th July, 1987 and that the compensation amount had
been sent to the RD. The Petitioner has enclosed copies of the Naksha
Muntazamin which shows compensation as „unpaid‟ for Khasra No.408 and
gives no details as regards Khasra No. 407. The Petitioner states that he
learnt that the amount deposited in the RD towards compensation payable
for lands in village Maidan Garhi was used for payment against the award
pertaining to the land in village Kakrola and therefore there was no amount
standing to the credit of the Petitioner even in the RD.
8. Claiming that all the conditions stipulated in Section 24(2) of the 2013
Act stand fulfilled, Mr. Pankaj Vivek, learned counsel for the Petitioner,
states that the declaration sought by the Petitioner in terms of Section 24(2)
of the 2013 Act should be issued by the Court.
9. At the hearing of this petition on 12th September, 2018 while directing
notice to be issued, the parties were directed to maintain status-quo.
10. Mr. Vivek was unable to explain the inordinate delay in approaching the
Court for relief. On the showing of the Petitioner himself it was to his
knowledge that the judgment dated 26th September, 1990 in WP (C) No.
41/1986 did not cover the lands in question. He was silent on when he came
to know of that so called mistake of Khasra Nos.407 and 408 not being
included in that writ petition. He is also silent about when he came to know
that possession was recorded as having been taken on 16th July, 1987 itself.
It appears that despite being aware that the land acquisition proceedings in
respect of the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 407 and408 were not quashed,
the Petitioner kept dealing with the land and did nothing to question the land
acquisition proceedings for many years.
11. Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act is not meant to come to the rescue of such
persons, who knowingly deal with the land in respect of which an Award
has been made under the LAA. In its judgment dated 19th December, 2018 in
WP(C) No. 6287/2014 (Kartar Singh vs. Union of India), this Court
rejected pleas of similarly placed Petitioners who were questioning the
validity of the land acquisition proceedings and seeking a declaration under
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act long after the passing of the Award and in the
meanwhile allegedly dealing with the lands knowing fully well that they
stood vested with the State.
12. There has to be some valid explanation for the inordinate delay in
approaching the Court for relief and it is not sufficient for the Petitioner to
plead that a fresh cause of action arose on 1st January, 2014 when the 2013
Act came into force. Even then, the Petitioner would have to explain why he
waited till 21st August, 2018 to file the present petition. There is no
explanation for that either. It may be further noticed here that the scope of
the decision of this Court in Balbir v. Union of India (supra) has been
limited to the facts of those cases as was held by the Supreme Court
subsequently in Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban (2007) 7 SCC
296.
13. In Mahavir v. Union of India (2018) 3 SCC 588 the Supreme Court has
emphasized that reliefs under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act have to be
sought in good time. It was observed as under:
"23. 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.
24. 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."
14. The above decision was followed by this Court in a number of decisions
including the decision dated 10th December, 2018 in WP(C) No. 2734/2015
in (Devender Singh v.The Hon'ble Lt. Governor), the decision dated 17th
December, 2018 in WP(C) No. 1380/2016 (Bhule Ram v. Union of India)
and the decision dated 21st December, 2018 in WP(C) No. 5647/2016 in
(Ram Devi v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi).
15. Consequently, this Court finds no merit in this petition and it is
dismissed as such. The interim order stands vacated. The application is also
dismissed.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
SANJEEV NARULA, J.
JANUARY 07, 2019/mw
