Delhi High Court
Pushpa Rani vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr on 21 May, 2019
$~43 to 50
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9228/2018
PUSHPA RANI ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Anusuya Salwan with Ms.Nikita
Salwan, Ms.Shreya Sharma &
Mr.Ayush Srivastava, Advocates.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Arun Birbal with Mr.Sanjay
Singh, Advocates for DDA.
Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel
with Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for
LAC/L&B-R2.
+ W.P.(C) 9229/2018
OM PRAKASH (SINCE DECEASED) ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Anusuya Salwan with Ms.Nikita
Salwan, Ms.Shreya Sharma &
Mr.Ayush Srivastava, Advocates.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Arun Birbal with Mr.Sanjay
Singh, Advocates for DDA.
Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel
with Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for
LAC/L&B-R2.
+ W.P.(C) 9230/2018
HARISH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Anusuya Salwan with Ms.Nikita
Salwan, Ms.Shreya Sharma &
W.P.(C) 9228/2018 and connected matters. Page 1 of 12
Mr.Ayush Srivastava, Advocates.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Arun Birbal with Mr.Sanjay
Singh, Advocates for DDA.
Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel
with Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for
LAC/L&B-R2.
+ W.P.(C) 9231/2018
JAG MOHAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Anusuya Salwan with Ms.Nikita
Salwan, Ms.Shreya Sharma &
Mr.Ayush Srivastava, Advocates.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Arun Birbal with Mr.Sanjay
Singh, Advocates for DDA.
Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel
with Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for
LAC/L&B-R2.
+ W.P.(C) 9232/2018
MOHAN LAL ARORA ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Anusuya Salwan with Ms.Nikita
Salwan, Ms.Shreya Sharma &
Mr.Ayush Srivastava, Advocates.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Tanmay Yadav, Advocate for
W.P.(C) 9228/2018 and connected matters. Page 2 of 12
Ms.Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
for DDA.
Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel
with Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for
LAC/L&B-R2.
+ W.P.(C) 9233/2018
JAWAHAR LAL PURI ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Anusuya Salwan with Ms.Nikita
Salwan, Ms.Shreya Sharma &
Mr.Ayush Srivastava, Advocates.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Pawan Mathur, Standing Counsel
for DDA.
Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel
with Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for
LAC/L&B-R2.
+ W.P.(C) 9234/2018
RAKESH PURI ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Anusuya Salwan with Ms.Nikita
Salwan, Ms.Shreya Sharma &
Mr.Ayush Srivastava, Advocates.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Arun Birbal with Mr.Sanjay
Singh, Advocates for DDA.
Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel
with Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for
W.P.(C) 9228/2018 and connected matters. Page 3 of 12
LAC/L&B-R2.
+ W.P.(C) 9235/2018
KANCHHIDMAL (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH: LR SH. ARUN
KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Anusuya Salwan with Ms.Nikita
Salwan, Ms.Shreya Sharma &
Mr.Ayush Srivastava, Advocates.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Arun Birbal with Mr.Sanjay
Singh, Advocates for DDA.
Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel
with Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for
LAC/L&B-R2.
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR
JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
ORDER
% 21.05.2019
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:
1. These petitions arise from the same background facts and raise similar
issues. They are accordingly being disposed of by this common judgment.
They were nevertheless heard separately.
2. In each of the petitions the prayer is for a declaration that the land
acquisition proceedings in respect of the property in Khasra Nos.64/1 min,
65/1 min and 66/1 min in village Kilokari, Delhi are deemed to have lapsed
under Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 („2013 Act‟).
3. The background facts are that each of the Petitioners claim to be in
possession of a small parcel of land in the above location near the Fire
Station, Ashram Chowk, Jagram Akhara, New Delhi since 1935 where the
predecessors of the Petitioners had established a shop in order to earn their
livelihood.
4. The admitted position is that the land acquisition proceedings were
initiated in 1964 and culminated in Award No.1716 dated 20th July 1964.
Further it is not in dispute that during all these years there was no challenge
whatsoever to the land acquisition proceedings.
5. As far as the physical possession is concerned, a note was prepared on
30th August 1964 by the authorities concerned to the effect that while
possession of the vacant land was taken, possession of land over which
structures existed and was in the occupation of co-owners and tenants could
not be taken over „as they refused to hand over the possession.‟ A list of
such structures was also appended to the said note.
6. The narration in each of the petitions omits to state what happened during
the intervening years from the passing of the Award till when the Delhi
Development Authority („DDA‟)/ Respondent No.1 apparently started
raising demands for damages which were duly paid by the Petitioners. It is
then stated that when demolition action was threatened on 8th November
2006, WP(C) Nos. 16852-61 of 2006 were filed in this Court. An interim
order was passed in those writ petitions on 14 th November 2006 directing
status quo to be maintained.
7. It is stated that on 4th December 2006 show cause notices were issued to
the each of the Petitioners under Section 4 (1) of the Public Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants), 1971 („PP Act‟) pursuant to which
each of the Petitioners appeared before the Estate Officer and filed
objections. It appears that on 20th December 2006 the Estate Officer passed
eviction orders which were then challenged by each of the Petitioners by
filing petitions under Section 9 of the PP Act before the learned Addl.
District Judge (ADJ), Tis Hazari Courts.
8. When WP(C) 16852-61 of 2006 came up for hearing before the learned
Single Judge of this Court an order was passed on 6 th February 2007
directing time bound disposal of the appeals by the learned ADJ and status
quo to be maintained in the meanwhile.
9. According to the Petitioners, in disregard of the above order, the DDA
officials on 9th June 2007 forcibly sealed the premises occupied by the
Petitioners. Another writ petition being WP(C) 4608 of 2007 was filed in
which a split verdict was delivered by the Division Bench on 12th October
2007. It is stated that before the verdict of the third learned Judge to whom
the matter was referred could be delivered, the Supreme Court stayed the
proceedings in the said writ petition by its orders in WP(C) 4677 of 1985
(M.C.Mehta v. Union of India).
10. The Petitioners challenged the sealing action before the Supreme Court
by filing an application in the said WP(C) 4677 of 1985. In the year 2014
the matter concerning the sealing of the Petitioners‟ premises was
transferred to the Appellate Tribunal MCD in Appeal No.251 of 2014 which
is stated to be pending adjudication.
11. Meanwhile on 6th May 2008 the learned ADJ dismissed the Petitioners‟
appeal under Section 9 of the PP Act. This was challenged before this Court
by the Petitioners by filing WP(C) 4489 of 2008 which came to be dismissed
by learned Single Judge on 9th June 2008. The learned Single Judge noted
the submission of counsel for the Petitioners that „the Petitioners do not
possess any title over the land in question.‟
12. The said order dated 9th June 2008 was challenged by way of LPA
Nos.493, 494, 495 and 660 of 2008. A common judgment dated 5 th
November 2008 was passed by the Division Bench („DB‟) of this Court
disposing of the said appeals and remanding the matters to the Estate officer
for cross-examination of Halka Patwari.
13. The writ petitions then narrate the various proceedings that took place
before the Estate Officer ending in orders again being passed on 13th May
2016 against the Petitioners. The appeal filed against the said order by the
Petitioner was dismissed by the learned District and Sessions Judge (D&SJ)
on 2nd July 2018.
14. The Petitioners therein filed a series of petitions before the learned
Single Judge of this Court assailing the said order of the D&SJ. All the
petitions were dismissed as withdrawn on 14th August 2018 after noting the
following statement on behalf of the Petitioners:
"4. After hearing, the counsel for the petitioners, under
instructions from the petitioners, unconditionally withdraws
these petitions and states that the petitioners shall be bound by
the orders of their respective eviction unless they get relief in
proceedings which the petitioners intend to initiate under the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It is
stated that the orders of eviction be made inexecutable for a
period of 10 days from today, to enable the petitioners to
initiate the said proceedings and to seek interim orders of
protection from eviction in the said proceedings."
15. The eviction orders were made inexecutable till 26th August 2018. It
must be noted that the learned Single Judge also noted the submission of the
DDA in para 6 as under:
"6. The counsel for the respondent DDA however draws
attention to the order dated 9th June, 2008 of this Court in the
earlier round, recording the statement of the then counsel for
the petitioners that the petitioners have no title to the premises
in their respective occupation and are merely in possession
thereof for long. It is argued that the petitioners have no rights
under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act."
16. Pursuant to the above order the present writ petitions were filed. They
came up for hearing first on 31st August 2018, on which date while declining
interim relief the Court passed the following order:
"The petitioners claim to be interested persons within the
definition of Section 3(10) of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as '2013 Act').
The petitioners seek a declaration that the acquisition
proceedings pertaining to the land of the petitioners are deemed
to have lapsed as neither physical possession has been taken nor
compensation has been paid.
Counsels for the respondents who have entered appearance on
an advance copy have raised a preliminary objection with
regard to the maintainability of the writ petitions on the ground
that the petitioners do not fall within the definition of interested
persons. In fact they are rank trespassers. Proceedings were
initiated against them under the Public Premises Act and orders
for eviction were passed by the Estate Officer and an appeal
under Section 9 of the Public Premises Act against the orders
before the learned District and Sessions Judge, South-East,
Saket Courts, Delhi stands dismissed. The writ petitions filed
also stand dismissed as withdrawn unconditionally except to
file writ petitions invoking Section 24(2) of the Act.
Ms Salwan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has
relied on paragraphs 17 and 29 of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs.
Manav Dharma Trust and another, reported in 2017 (6) SCC
751 in support of her contention. Learned counsels for the
respondents submit that the judgment in the case of Manav
Dharma (supra) will not apply to the facts of the present cases
in view of the fact that the question of title stands decided in
proceedings initiated under the Public Premises Act. The order
of eviction has been passed and thus it cannot be said that the
petitioners have any right, title or interest over the land in
question. Prima facie we find force in the submissions made by
counsels for the respondents.
Issue notice to show cause as to why petitions be not admitted
subject to the preliminary objection raised by the respondents.
Counter affidavits be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder(s), if
any, be filed within four weeks thereafter.
List on 29.10.2018.
In view of the reasons aforesaid, the interim relief is declined."
17. This Court has heard the submissions of Ms.Anusuya Salwan, learned
counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Mr.Arun Birbal, learned counsel
appearing for the DDA and Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel for
LAC/L&B. A counter affidavit has been filed by the DDA in opne of the
petitions i.e. W.P. 9235 of 2018 (Kancchid Mal v. DDA & Anr.).
18. Ms. Salwan placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Manav Dharm Trust (2017) 6 SCC 751 and urged
that the Petitioners were not precluded from questioning the land acquisition
proceedings after a valuable right accrued to them in terms of Section 24 (2)
of the 2013 Act with effect from 1st January 2014.
19. There are several reasons why the said decision will not come to the aid
of the present Petitioners. In the first place as the above narration shows
there were already two rounds of litigation under the PP Act in which the
Petitioners failed to demonstrate any right, title or interest in the properties
under their occupation. Therefore, there has already been a failed attempt on
their part to question the action of the Respondents in seeking to evict them.
20. The second reason is that the land acquisition proceedings culminated
with the passing of the Award way back in 1964 i.e. more than 55 years ago.
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is not meant to come to the aid of such
persons who have already failed in other attempts made by them to avoid
eviction. The claim of the Petitioners that they have any right, title or
interest stands comprehensively decided against them in the proceedings
under the PP Act.
21. Thirdly, the Petitioners have never questioned the land acquisition
proceedings till the filing of the present petitions in 2018 which again is
more than 3 years after the coming into force of the 2013 Act on 1st January
2014. Clearly, the petitions are barred by delay and laches. The following
observations of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v.
Shailendra (2018) 3 SCC 412 squarely apply to the present petitions:
"130. We are of the view that stale or dead claims cannot be the
subject-matter of judicial probing under section 24 of the Act of
2013. The provisions of section 24 do not invalidate those
judgment/orders of the courts where under rights/claims have
been lost/negatived, neither do they revive those rights which
have come barred, either due to inaction or otherwise by
operation of law. Fraudulent and stale claims are not at all to be
raised under the guise of section 24. Misuse of provisions of
section 24(2) cannot be permitted. Protection by the courts in
cases of such blatant misuse of the provisions of law could
never have been the intention behind enacting the provisions of
section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act; and, by the decision laid down
in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra), and this Court never,
even for a moment, intended that such cases would be received
or entertained by the courts."
22. It may be noted here that the reference made by a Constitution Bench in
Indore Development Authority v. Shyam Verma (2018) 4 SCC 405
regarding the correctness of the aforesaid decision in Indore Development
Authority v. Shailendra (supra) is only as regards the extent to which it
differs from the earlier view of the Supreme Court in Pune Municipal
Corporation v. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki (supra) regarding the
tendering of compensation, and not on the question of petitions seeking
declaration under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act being barred by laches.
This legal position was explained by this Court recently in its decision in
Mool Chand v. Union of India 2019 (173) DRJ 595 DB.
23. Consequently, the Court finds no merit in any of these petitions. The
writ petitions and all pending applications, if any, are dismissed.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
I.S. MEHTA, J.
MAY 21, 2019
tr
