Sri Ram & Ors v. Union of India & Anr

O R D E R %

28.01.2019

¶1The prayers in the present petition read as under:

"It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon"ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land comprised in khasra Nos. 198 (2-03), 199 (4-04) and 200 (4-04) full share situated in the revenue estate of village KotlaMaigiran, Delhi, acquired vide award No.205/86-87, pronounced on 19.09.1986 and further to issue appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the acquisition proceedings having lapsed and have become inoperative after the coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act of 2013.

Award cost of proceedings to the humble petitioner.

The Hon"ble Court may pass such other and further order as it deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case."

¶2According to the narration in the petition, it is seen that notification under

Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 ("LAA") was issued on 6th April 1964 followed by declaration under Section 6 of LAA on 7th December 1966. The impugned Award No.205/1986-87 was passed way back on 19th September 1986. There is no attempt made in the writ petition to explain the inordinate delay in approaching the Court for the reliefs in terms of Section 24 (3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("the 2013 Act"). According the Petitioners, since possession was not taken and the compensation amount was not paid, there was no occasion for the Petitioners to seek any relief till the passing of the 2013 Act.

¶3In the counter-affidavit filed by the DDA, it is stated that subsequent to the Award being passed for the purpose of the planned development of Delhi, possession of the disputed land was handed over to the DDA on 5th March 1997 and has been utilised under the DDA Commercial Scheme and that possession and control has been enjoyed solely by the DDA since. A copy of the possession proceedings has been enclosed. It is further submitted that compensation in respect of Award No.205/86-87 amounting to Rs.2 crores was paid to the concerned L&B Department by Cheque No.0018462 dated 27th January 1986 and also that as per Statement "A", "compensation in respect of the Subject Land was sent to the ADJ court on 19.07.2010 in accordance with Section 30-31 of the Act vide cheque no.771527 dated

19.07.2010."

¶4No rejoinder has been filed to the counter affidavit of the DDA to contest the assertions regarding taking over of the possession. In any event, the assertion by the Petitioners that they continued to remain in possession of the land in question gives rise to a disputed question of facts. The fact remains that the Petitioners have no explanation to offer for the inordinate delay in

approaching the Court for the relief.

¶5On the aspect of laches, in Mahavir v. Union of India (2018) 3 SCC 588 the Supreme Court has observed as under: "23. In the instant case, the claim has been made not onlybelatedly, but neither the petitioners nor their previous threegenerations had ever approached any of the authorities inwriting for claiming compensation. No representation hadever been filed with any authority, none has been annexed andthere is no averment made in the petition that any suchrepresentation had ever been filed. The claim appears not onlystale and dead but extremely clouded. This we are mentioningas additional reasons, as such claims not only suffer fromdelay and laches but courts are not supposed to entertain such claims. Besides such claims become doubtful, cannot bereceived for consideration being barred due to delay andlaches.

¶24The High Court has rightly observed that such claimscannot be permitted to be raised in the court, and cannot beadjudicated as they are barred. The High Court has rightlyobserved that such claims cannot be a subject matter ofinquiry after the lapse of a reasonable period of time andbeneficial provisions of Section 24 of the 2013 Act are notavailable to such incumbents. In our opinion, Section 24cannot revive those claims that are dead and stale."

¶6The above observations have been reiterated in the judgment of the three Judge Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (2018) 3 SCC 412 where it was observed as under: "128. In our considered opinion section 24 cannot be used to revivethe dead or stale claims and the matters, which have beencontested up to this Court or even in the High Court having lost thecases or where reference has been sought for enhancement of thecompensation. Compensation obtained and still it is urged thatphysical possession has not been taken from them, such claimscannot be entertained under the guise of section 24(2). We havecome across the cases in which findings have been recorded that by which of drawing a Panchnama,

possession has been taken, nowagain under Section 24(2) it is asserted again that physicalpossession is still with them. Such claims cannot be entertained inview of the previous decisions in which such plea ought to havebeen raised and such decisions would operate as res judicata orconstructive res judicata. As either the plea raised is negatived orsuch plea ought to have been raised or was not raised in theprevious round of litigation. Section 24 of the Act of 2013 does notsupersede or annul the court"s decision and the provisions cannotbe misused to reassert such claims once over again. OncePanchnama has been drawn and by way of drawing the Panchnamaphysical possession has been taken, the case cannot be reopenedunder the guise of section 24 of Act of 2013.

¶129Section 24 is not intended to come to the aid of those who firstdeliberately refuse to accept the compensation, and then indulge inill-advised litigation, and often ill-motivated dilatory tactics, fordecades together. On the contrary, the section is intended to helpthose who have not been offered or paid the compensation despite itbeing the legal obligation of the acquiring body so to do, and/or whohave been illegally deprived of their possession for five years ormore; in both the scenarios, fault/cause not being attributable tothe landowners/claimants.

¶130We are of the view that stale or dead claims cannot be thesubject-matter of judicial probing under section 24 of the Act of2013. The provisions of section 24 do not invalidate thosejudgment/orders of the courts where under rights/claims have beenlost/negatived, neither do they revive those rights which have comebarred, either due to inaction or otherwise by operation of law.Fraudulent and stale claims are not at all to be raised under theguise of section 24. Misuse of provisions of section 24(2) cannot bepermitted. Protection by the courts in cases of such blatant misuseof the provisions of law could never have been the intention behindenacting the provisions of section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act; and, by thedecision laid down in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra), and thisCourt never, even for a moment, intended that such cases would bereceived or entertained by the courts."

¶7The above observations have been followed by this Court in several orders

including the order dated 10th December, 2018 in WP(C) No. 2734/2015 (Devender Singh v. The Hon'ble Lt. Governor) and similar petitions have been dismissed on the ground of laches.

¶8Clearly, the Petitioners" case is covered by the above decisions of the Supreme Court. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed on the ground of laches. The interim order dated 22nd January 2018 as confirmed on 11th April 2018 is hereby vacated.

S.MURALIDHAR, J.

SANJEEV NARULA, J. JANUARY 28, 2019 tr

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 632/2018 SRI RAM &ORS . ..... Petitioners Through: Mr Deepak Khosla, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA&ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for LAC/L&B. Mr Mayank Bamniyal with Ms Mallka Ahluwalia, Advocates for R-2/DDA CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA