Sohan Lal & Ors v. Union of India and Ors

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. AUGUST 14, 2019 "bs/pp"

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 14th August, 2019. + SOHAN LAL & ORS ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Rajat Navet and Mr. Kushagra Pandit, Advs. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha and Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Advs. for D-1/UOI. Mr. Digvijay Rai and Mr. Aman Yadav, Advs. for D-2/AAI. Mr. Subrat Deb and Mr. Sujeet Kumar, Advs. for D-3/DDA. Mr. S.K. Rout and Mr. Aman Mehrotra, Advs. for D-13,15,16&17. Mr. Anil Tomar, E.A.(A), Director of Punchayats. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. The ten plaintiffs, of which five are the sons of Yad Ram and the other five are sons of Udey Ram, instituted this suit in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Delhi, (i) for declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to (a) 500 sq. yds. of land in Khasra No.1242; (b) 2/3rd share in 150 sq. yds. of land in Khasra No.1210; (c) 302 sq. yds. of land in Khasra No.1238/2 and 1238/3; and, (d) 1/3rd share in 78 sq. yds. of land in Khasra No.1243, i.e. total land admeasuring 928 sq. yds., in Village Nangal Dewat, Delhi and entitled to allotment of alternate plot in lieu thereof; (ii) permanent injunction restraining the defendants No.1 to 3 Union of India (Land Acquisition Collector), Airport Authority of India (AAI) and Delhi Development Authority (DDA) from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the said land till allotment of alternate plot; and, (iii) mandatory injunction directing the defendants No.1 to 3 to make allotment of alternate land to the plaintiffs. 2. Besides the defendants No.1 to 3 aforesaid, defendants No.4 and 5, being the sons of Changdi Ram, defendants No.6 to 10 being legal representatives (LRs) of Changdi Ram and defendants No.11 to 17 being LRs of Surat Ram, were also impleaded as defendants. Vide order dated 19th July, 2016, Director of Panchayats (GNCTD) has also been impleaded as defendant No.18. 3. At this stage, it is deemed appropriate to set out the factual position. 4. On 28th April, 1972, Notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of land at village Nangal Dewat, for purposes of expansion of Indira Gandhi International Airport, was issued. Writ petitions were filed in this Court challenging the said acquisition. Vide a consent order in the said writ petitions, apart from compensation to be paid for acquired lands, those who would be uprooted from their homes, were agreed to be provided alternative land for their residence. 5. This court in the aforesaid litigation, with the consent of the parties, devised a scheme for allotment of alternative land and a Nodal Officer was appointed for preparing the list of persons eligible for allotment of alternate land and for deciding the objections to the list of eligible persons so drawn up and guidelines framed for determining the eligibility. 6. Objections to the list so prepared by the Nodal Officer, including by filing fresh writ petitions, were preferred by a large number of persons. 7. Finally, vide judgment dated 30th May, 2007 reported as Airports Authority of India Vs. Karan Singh 141 (2007) DLT 277, while disposing of the matters, it was inter alia held that no further petitions challenging the orders of the Nodal Officer or by persons who never filed their claims before the Nodal Officer would thereafter be entertained, either by this Court or by the Civil Court. It was reasoned, that all the claimants belonged to the same village Nangal Dewat and the litigation had been on since 1982 and it was inconceivable that any resident of the village would have been unaware of the pendency of the proceedings and the claims filed by the residents of that village. It was further reasoned that time limit had been set in the guidelines for the Nodal officer to entertain claims and it had been made clear that no further claims beyond the time set in the order dated 26th August, 2004 would be entertained; however, even thereafter the Court had permitted some claims to be f