Delhi High Court
Mrs Mohinder Duggal vs Delhi Development Authority And ... on 26 July, 2023
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: July 26, 2023
+ W.P.(C) 9796/2023, CM APPL. 37597/2023
MRS MOHINDER DUGGAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nikhilesh Kumar, Adv.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, SC with
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mohd. Akhtar,
Ms. Rini Tigga and Ms. Nidhi
Thakur, Advs. for R-3/LAC
Ms. Shobhana Takiar, SC with
Mr. Kuljeet Singh, Adv. with
Mr. Rahul, Legal Assistant for DDA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 37597/2023 (for exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 9796/2023
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
following prayers:
"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may graciously be pleased to:
a) Issue a writ of mandamus, order(s) or direction(s),
directing the Respondents to release the 1/4th compensation
in terms of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
KUMAR YADAV W.P.(C) 9796/2023 Page 1
Signing Date:31.07.2023
12:17:03
in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 for the land bearing Kh. No. 1868/1 (0-8), 1955/1 (0-
05), 1942/1 (0-10), 1962/2 (0-12), 1959 2/2 (1-08) and 1958
1/2 (0-06) totaling 3 bigha 09 biswas situated at Naraina
Village, Delhi (possession taken compensation not paid) in
favor of Petitioner along with interest @ 18% PA, in a time
bound manner;
b) Issue a writ of mandamus, order(s) or direction(s),
directing the Respondents to release the 1/4th compensation
in terms of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 for the land bearing Kh. No. 5 (5 Bigha), 1870/1 (0-3),
1895/1 (0-12), 1950/1 (1-13 ¾), 1957/1 (0-18), 1933/1 (0-
11) totaling 7 Bigha 17 ¾ biswas situated at Naraina
Village, Delhi (possession not taken compensation not paid)
in favor of Petitioner along with interest @ 18% PA, in a
time bound manner;
c) Issue a writ of mandamus, order(s) or direction(s),
directing the Respondents to pay interest @ 18% PA for
delayed compensation for around 28 years i.e. from
9.9.1983 till 11.4.2012, in a time bound manner;
d) Issue a writ of mandamus, order(s) or direction(s),
directing the Respondent No.2 to pass a speaking order or
make a reference to the Ld. LA Court on the application
filed by the Petitioner u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act
1894 dated 28.10.1983 vide Diary No. 116 as well as
additional application u/s 18 of the Act vide Diary No.
6997/ADM/SW dated 8.10.2012 in a time bound manner;
e) pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the present case."
2. It is a conceded position that the land in question was acquired
in the year 1959, in terms of the notification issued on November 13,
1959, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('Act of
1894', for short). Declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894, was
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
KUMAR YADAV W.P.(C) 9796/2023 Page 2
Signing Date:31.07.2023
12:17:03
issued on August 10, 1962.
3. It appears that a writ petition was filed by the husband of the
petitioner in the year 1963, which was decided on November 15, 1972,
quashing the acquisition proceedings.
4. An Intra Court appeal was filed by the LAC, which was
allowed vide order dated September 19, 1980. The Special Leave
Petition filed by the husband of the petitioner was dismissed on
February 13, 1984.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that,
supplementary award was passed on September 19, 1983. On October
28, 1983, the husband of the petitioner sought reference under Section
18 of the Act of 1894, though no reference was made. On September
24, 1985, the husband of the petitioner sought the release of the
compensation. According to the counsel, the compensation was not
paid. The only explanation given by the petitioner for not claiming the
compensation or to approach the Court between 1984-1999 was on
account of illness of the son of the petitioner in the year 1987.
6. In any case, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that in the year 2012, the petitioner was paid part compensation. It is
the case of the petitioner and so contended by her counsel that the
petitioner has been pursuing remedy before the LAC but the LAC has
not paid compensation.
7. Suffice to state, the supplementary award having been passed in
the year 1983; a reference was sought immediately thereafter in 1983
and even the part compensation was paid in 2012, it is too late in the
day for the petitioner to seek the prayers as made in the writ petition.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
KUMAR YADAV W.P.(C) 9796/2023 Page 3
Signing Date:31.07.2023
12:17:03
8. The facts clearly demonstrate that the petition is hit by delay
and laches. In this regard, we may refer to the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (1975) 4 SCC
285 wherein it is held as under:
"11. Nor do we think that the petitioners in the writ petitions
should be allowed to raise this plea in view of their conduct in
not challenging the validity of the notification even after the
publication of the declaration under Section 6 in 1966. Of the
two writ petitions, one is filed by one of the appellants. There
was apparently no reason why the writ petitioners should have
waited till 1972 to come to this Court for challenging the validity
of the notification issued in 1959 on the ground that the
particulars of the public purpose were not specified. A valid
notification under Section 4 is a sine qua non for initiation of
proceedings for acquisition of property. To have sat on the fence
and allowed the Government to complete the acquisition
proceedings on the basis that the notification under Section 4
and the declaration under Section 6 were valid and then to
attack the notification on grounds which were available to them
at the time when the notification was published would be putting
a premium on dilatory tactics. The writ petitions are liable to be
dismissed on the ground of laches and delay on the part of the
petitioners (see Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi [(1969) 1
SCC 110 : (1969) 2 SCR 824] and Rabindranath Base v. Union
of India [(1970) 1 SCC 84 : (1970) 2 SCR 697] )."
9. The petition is dismissed.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J
JULY 26, 2023/aky
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
KUMAR YADAV W.P.(C) 9796/2023 Page 4
Signing Date:31.07.2023
12:17:03
