Delhi High Court
Pratap Singh & Ors. vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 8 January, 2019
$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 43/2017
PRATAP SINGH & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vishal Maan, Advocate with Mr.
Roshan Nandal and Mr. Aakash
Sehrawat, Advocate.
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sumit Chander, Advocate with
Mr. Jatin Choudhary, Advocate for
Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
Mr. Pawan Mathur, Standing Counsel
for DDA.
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR
JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 08.01.2019
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:
1. The prayer in the present petition reads as under:
"i. Issue an appropriate writ, order or directions declaring the
entire acquisition proceedings in respect of the land of petitioners
i.e. 7 bighas and 18 biswas out of land ad-measuring 9 Bighas
and 17 Biswas comprised in khasra nos.649/346 (9-17), village
Lado Sarai, New Delhi to have lapsed in view of Section 24 (2)
of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013.
ii. Pass any further order/s that this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
2. The narration in the petition is that a notification under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LAA) was issued on 23rd January 1965
followed by a declaration under Section 6 of LAA issued in 1966. The
Award was passed in 1984-85.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by the LAC, a preliminary objection is raised
that the petition is barred by laches. It is further stated that land in question
was acquired under Award No. 17/1984-85 and possession of Khasra No.
649/346 (9-17), Village Lado Sarai, New Delhi was taken on 21st July, 1984.
4. In para 11 of the counter affidavit of the LAC in a tabular column, the
details of the payment of compensation as per Statement „A‟ has been set
out. A separate counter affidavit has been filed by the DDA enclosing the
copy of the possession report thereby confirming that physical possession of
the land was taken and handed over to it.
5. Mr. Vishal Mann, learned counsel for the Petitioners, however disputes
that possession was taken from them and asserts that till date the Petitioners
continue to remain in possession. He has also disputed that compensation
was received by the predecessors-in-interest of the Petitioners or the
Petitioners themselves. Mr. Mann referred to the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Mahavir v. Union of India (2018) 3 SCC 588. According to him,
the said judgment would apply only where there was an actual abuse of
process of Court where despite receiving notices under Section 12 (2) of the
LAA, the claimants did not come forward to collect the compensation or
where the claims becomes stale. According to him, the earlier land
acquisition proceedings did not come to an end till such time actual physical
possession of the land was not taken in terms of Section 16 of the LAA. He
submits that in the instant case, no such attempt was made and, therefore,
there was no occasion for the Petitioners to approach the Court earlier for
relief.
6. The Court is unable to accept the above submissions. It is plain that in the
present case, despite being aware of the Award which was passed more than
three decades ago, no attempt was made by the Petitioners to challenge it in
all these years. The decision in Mahavir v. Union of India (supra) is explicit
that claims which are not only stale or dead but even barred on account of
inaction by the party cannot be sought to be revived by resorting to Section
24 (2) of the 2013 Act.
7. Further, the question whether the Petitioners are in actual physical
possession of the lands in question or whether compensation has been paid
becomes a disputed question of fact in view of the pleadings in the present
petition. In light of the details of the compensation paid set out in the
affidavit of the LAC and the possession report enclosed with the affidavit of
the DDA, a question arises whether the Petitioners or their predecessors-in-
interest, at a subsequent point in time, re-entered the land in which case their
occupation would be unauthorised. These disputed questions cannot be
examined in the present proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
8. In the circumstances, the Court sees no reason why it should entertain the
present petition.
9. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
SANJEEV NARULA, J.
JANUARY 08, 2019/ss
