Delhi High Court
Deepjot Singh Anand vs Union Of India Through Lac & Anr. on 24 July, 2023
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: July 24, 2023
+ W.P.(C) 3522/2023
DEEPJOT SINGH ANAND ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sarim Naved, Mr. Deepjot Singh
and Mr. Pranay Kumar, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH LAC & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Mr. B.R. Meena,
ADM/LAC-West, Mr. Lalit Kumar,
ASO/NT, Mr. Kushal Raj Tater for
LC and Mr. Nishat Patware.
Mr. Anupam Srivastava, ASC,
GNCTD with Mr. Vasuh Misra and
Mr. Dhairya Gupta, Advs. for R-
2/GNCTD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
following prayers:
"a. Quash Notification No. F7 (23)/95/L&B/LA/12691
dated 12.08.1997 insofar as the same pertains to the land
of the Petitioners and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
KUMAR YADAV W.P.(C) 3522/2023 Page 1
Signing Date:31.07.2023
12:17:03
b. Quash Award No. 3/DCW/98-99 dated 15.09.1998
insofar as the same pertains to the land of the Petitioners
c. Direct return the land acquired by and in possession of
the Respondent to the Petitioners.
d. Order such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper."
2. In effect the petitioner is challenging the notification issued
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('Act of 1894',
for short) dated August 12, 1997 and the award dated September
15, 1998 passed pursuant thereto.
3. The case of the petitioner is that his land has been acquired
for the purpose of constructing a Sports School at Village Tikri
Kalan, measuring approximately 25 Bighas 13 Biswas bearing
Khasra Nos. 65/5/2 (0-12), 6/1 (2-8), 66/1/2/1 (2-00), 1/2/2 (2-7), 2
(4-16), 5 min (1-10) & 10-1 (2-8).
4. According to the petitioner and so contended by his
counsel that the notification was issued under the emergency
provision, Section 17 (1) of the Act of 1894 stating that the land
was acquired for the establishment of Sports School. Till date, the
land remains empty and unutilized. However, despite being paid
compensation as the land in question is still unutilized for any
purpose much less on the ground stated above, the land acquisition
notification and the award are liable to be quashed. In support of
his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon
the Judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Darshan Lal
Nagpal v. Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi, (2012) 2
SCC 327 and Radhe Shyam v. State of U.P. (2011) 5 SCC 553.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
KUMAR YADAV W.P.(C) 3522/2023 Page 2
Signing Date:31.07.2023
12:17:03
5. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Kr. Pathak, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent No.1 / LAC would submit that the
present petition is an abuse of process of law for non-disclosure of
complete and material facts and thus the petitioner has not come to
the Court with clean hands. In support of his submission, he has
relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India, (2010) 14 SCC 38. That
apart, he submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable being
grossly hit by delay and laches particularly when the acquisition of
land has been made in 1997 and the award has been passed in 1998
and enhanced compensation of more than ₹ 1.2 Crore has already
been received by the petitioner. In support of his submission he
has relied upon the Judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of
Aflatoon and Ors. v. Lt. Governnor of Delhi and Ors., (1975) 4
SCC 285 and Kishan Das and Ors. v. State of UP and Ors. (1995)
6 SCC 240.
6. According to Mr. Pathak, the petitioner having accepted
the acquisition proceedings in totality and having pursued his
remedy for payment of compensation only and thereafter availing
all statutory and legal remedies for seeking enhancement of
compensation right up to the Supreme Court and having obtained
payment of awarded compensation and enhanced compensation
and still pursuing the remedy in execution, the petitioner has
waived his right to challenge the acquisition proceedings on any
ground whatsoever and has acquiesced in compensation
proceedings. Thus the present petition is liable to be rejected.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
KUMAR YADAV W.P.(C) 3522/2023 Page 3
Signing Date:31.07.2023
12:17:03
7. According to Mr. Pathak, the reliance placed by the
counsel for the petitioner on the judgments in the case of Darshan
Lal Nagpal (supra) and Radhe Shyam (supra) are not applicable
and clearly distinguishable on facts. According to him, even
otherwise, the judgments cannot be read as a statute and cannot be
applied in mathematical precision and each case has to be
determined in its own facts. He qualifies his submission by filing a
short note, wherein the following dates have been highlighted by
him:
"
Date Particulars
12.08.1997 Notification under Section 4 and 17 of the Land
Acquisition Act. 1894 was issued for acquisition of
156 bigha 15 biswa land in Village Tikri Kalan,
Delhi including land of petitioner for public
purpose namely for setting up sports school near
Ghevra More under planned development of Delhi
at Public Expenses
10.09.1997 Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued.
13.11.1997 In view of invocation of emergency provisions,
possession of the acquired land including land in
question was taken over and handed over to
requisitioning department. (Factum of possession
having been taken over is admitted by Petitioner in
para 5(c) of writ petition)
15.09.1998 Award No. 3/DC(W) 1998-99 was announced by the
LAC. Market value of the acquired land was
assessed categorizing 89 Bigha 15 biswa land in
Category A @ Rs. 10 Lakh per Acre or
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
KUMAR YADAV W.P.(C) 3522/2023 Page 4
Signing Date:31.07.2023
12:17:03
Rs.2,08,333/- per bigha and remaining 67 Bigha
acquired land in Category B @ Rs.8,80,000/- per
Acre or Rs.1,83,333/- per bigha besides granting
statutory benefits i.e. solatium @30% under Section
23(2) of the Act, additional amount @ 12% p.a.
under Section 23-1(A) of the Act, interest under
Section 34 of the Act @ 9% p.a. for 303 days (w.c.f.
13.11.1997 to 11.09.1998). Petitioner has not
denied acquisition of his land by this award. In
fact he has participated in award proceedings by
filing his claim.
As regards Petitioner's land, compensation as per
Naksha Muntzmin was assessed as under:
Category A-18 bigha 5 biswa = Rs.38,02,083.33
Category B-7 bigha 8 biswa = Rs.13,56,666.66
(A+B) 25 bigha 13 biswa = Rs.5158749.99
Solatium @30% (S.23(2) = Rs. 15,47,624.99
Addl. Amount @12% (S.23-1(A)
12.08.1997 to 13.11.1997 = Rs. 1,59,426.57
Interest @9% p.a. (u/S.34)
13.11.1997 to 11.09.1998 = Rs. 3,85,422.22
Thus, the petitioner's total compensation along with
statutory benefits came to be Rs.72,51,223.77.
29.10.1998 Notice under Section 12(2) and 31(1) of the Act was
served on the petitioner indicating / tendering
thereby the sum of Rs.72,51,223.77 payable to him
under the award. Petitioner has himself admitted
this fact in his earlier writ petition WP(C)
No.5463/1999 and in para 5(d) of this writ
petition.
25.08.1999 Petitioner filed WP(C) No.5463/1999 seeking
directions to the respondent to pay the land
acquisition compensation to him along with interest
for the period of delay till actual payment. There
was no challenge by petitioner to acquisition
proceedings or invocation of urgency clause under
Sec.17(1) & 17(4) of the Act thereby dispensing
with inquiry under Section 5A of the Act. THE
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
KUMAR YADAV W.P.(C) 3522/2023 Page 5
Signing Date:31.07.2023
12:17:03
WHOLE THRUST WAS ON PAYMENT OF
COMPENSATION WITH INTEREST AND NOT
ON CHALLENGE TO ACQUISITION.
20.02.2002 Pursuant to an order on 09.01.2002 directing the
Respondents to bring the admitted amount to the
Court and pay to the Petitioner, he was paid
Rs.72,12,682.00 and Rs.38,542/- was deducted
towards TDS (total awarded compensation and
statutory benefits paid Rs.72.51,224)
05.05.2005 Vide judgment/order dated 05.05.2005, WP(C) No.
5463/1999 was disposed of. In para 5 of the
judgment it has been mentioned as under-
"5. Still there was a difference of Rs.1,27,537.67
which was given to the petitioner after number of
hearing on 16.02.2005. While admitted balance of
Rs.2.88,748.65 was paid by the respondents again
on previous date."
15.10.1998 "Reference dated 15.10.1998 under section 18 was
/18.11.2006 preferred by the petitioner and amended reference
was filed 18.11.2006. In the reference also there
was no challenge to acquisition proceedings.
Reference was referred to the learned Court of the
Addl. Distt. Judge being LAC No.8/10/01.
10.05.2016 Reference LAC No.8/10/01 was decided by the
learned Reference Court granting compensation @
Rs.2,35,815 per bigha for Category 'A' land and
Rs.1,90,156 per bigha for Category 'B' land.
The petitioner was held not entitled to 15% interest
from 18.02.2010 to 30.03.2016 because the
proceedings had been delayed by the petitioner.
09.06.2016 LA.APP. No. 179/2016 titled Deepjot Singh Vs UOI
& Anr. against the judgment of Reference Court
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
KUMAR YADAV W.P.(C) 3522/2023 Page 6
Signing Date:31.07.2023
12:17:03
was filed by the petitioner.
25.03.2017 Petitioner had also filed Ex. Civil 202/2017 for
execution. This fact has not been disclosed in the
present writ petition.
28.07.2017 LA.APP. No. 232/2017 titled UOI vs Deepjot Singh
and Anr. was filed by UOI through LAC
20.09.2017 Rs.20,35,662 was deposited in this Hon'ble High
Court by Asha Agarwal, Dy. Director of Education,
Sports vide Cheque No. 048685 dated 19.09.2017
towards compensation/decretal amount in LA APP
No. 232/2017
14.03.2018 Cont.Cas(C) No. 195/2018 in LA APP. No,
232/2017 was filed by the Petitioner for alleged
non-compliance.
06.07.2018 Cont Cast (C) No. 195/2018 was dismissed finding
no merit.
16.07.2018 LA APP. No. 232/2017 filed by UOI was dismissed.
It was directed that the amount deposited in
LA.APP. No.232/2017 together with interest if any
accrued thereon be released to Deepjot Singh.
It was pointed out that some further amount of
about Rs.3 lacs is payable to the appellant in
LA.APP. No.179/2016, The Hon'ble High Court
directed the beneficiary that the deficient amount be
paid directly to the appellant Deepjot Singh.
22.02.2019 In Ex. Civil 202/2017, in the order dated
22.02.2019 it has been observed as under:
"Perusal of record reveals that in part satisfaction
of the decree an amount of Rs.28,85,895/- was
furnished by JD- No-2 by way of cheque on dated
28.11.2018 before the Ld. Predecessor of this
court, who directed it to be deposited in SBI Bank,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
KUMAR YADAV W.P.(C) 3522/2023 Page 7
Signing Date:31.07.2023
12:17:03
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in the form of FDR till
further orders. Since, DH is entitled to this
amount, same be released to the DHI, as per
procedure".
29.03.2019 In Ex. Civil 202/2017 in order dated 29.03.2019 it
has been noted that "Today an amount of Rs.
26,34,663/- has been paid to the D.H."
30.05.2019 LA.APP. No. 179/2016 filed by petitioner was
dismissed rejecting the grounds urged by petitioner.
Hon'ble High Court rejecting the plea of
categorization of land in A and B Category and
further confirmed the finding of the reference court
that the appellant/petitioner was not entitled to
interest @ 15% from 18.02.2010 from 30.03.2016.
Petitioner filed FAO(OS) No.131/2019 which was
later renumbered as LPA No. 493/2019
22.12.2022 LPA No. 493/2019 was dismissed as not
maintainable.
"
8. We have been informed that even the judgment dated
December 22, 2022 was challenged by the petitioner before the
Supreme Court and the same has been dismissed.
9. From the aforesaid it is clear that at no point of time did the
petitioner challenged the notification under Section 4 and
invocation of Section 17 of the Act of 1894. Rather the attempt of
the petitioner throughout has been seeking compensation /
enhancement of compensation. The notification under Section 4
was issued in 1997, i.e., almost 26 years back. Even the award has
been passed around 25 years back. It is too late in the day for the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
KUMAR YADAV W.P.(C) 3522/2023 Page 8
Signing Date:31.07.2023
12:17:03
petitioner to challenge the notification / award before this Court
only on the ground that there was no urgency in the acquisition.
10. Reliance placed by the counsel for the petitioner in the case
of Darshan Lal Nagpal (supra) and Radhe Shyam (supra) have
no applicability to the facts of this case. In fact, the ground itself
was available to the petitioner even in the year 1997 or for that
matter in the year 1998 or even immediately thereafter but not in
the year 2023. But the petitioner knowing well his claim, has been
seeking remedy for compensation / enhancement of compensation.
11. Additionally, it must be stated that the petitioner has sought
a reference under Section 18 of the Act on November 18, 2006
which was decided on May 10, 2016 from which he filed an appeal
on June 9, 2016, still he has not challenged the notification under
Section 4 and also invocation of Section 17 of the Act of 1894. In
fact, he had sought execution of the orders granting compensation
and even against the dismissal of LPA No. 179/2016, which was
held to be not maintainable, the petitioner has filed an SLP which
was also dismissed, though no order of the same has been placed
on record.
12. Mr. Pathak is right in submitting that the present petition is
nothing but an abuse of process of law inasmuch as the petitioner
knowing well his claim for compensation / enhanced compensation
has been settled till the Supreme Court, has filed this petition
clearly demonstrate the attempt of the petitioner is to again initiate
/ revive the process of litigation on a different ground altogether.
We are of the view that the present petition filed by the petitioner is
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
KUMAR YADAV W.P.(C) 3522/2023 Page 9
Signing Date:31.07.2023
12:17:03
not maintainable in view of the facts as noted above and the same
is dismissed with cost of ₹10,000/- to be deposited with the Delhi
High Court Advocates Welfare Trust within four weeks.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J
JULY 24, 2023/jg
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
KUMAR YADAV W.P.(C) 3522/2023 Page 10
Signing Date:31.07.2023
12:17:03
