Ravi Dutt & Ors v. UOI &Ors

T.S. THAKUR,J ARUNA SURESH, J APRIL 11, 2008 anb

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7423/2007 Date of Decision: th April, 2008 RAVI DUTT & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through Mr. N.S. Vashist, adv. versus UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr. S.P. Sharma, adv. with Mr. Munish Kumar, adv. for R-1. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, adv. with Mr. H.P. Sahu, Mr. Ramesh Ray, adv. for LAC Mr. Yatinder Chaudhary, adv. for Mr. Gaurav Sarin, adv. for DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes T.S. Thakur, J This petition is barred by inordinate and unexplained delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. It challenges the legality of a preliminary notification issued more than 27 years back and a declaration issued nearly 22 years ago in respect of an area admeasuring 43 Bighas 12 Biswas situated within the Revenue State of Village Chhattarpur, Tehsil Hauz Khas in the National Capital Territory of Delhi. An earlier petition challenging the preliminary notification was filed in the year 1984 but was dismissed as withdrawn by an order dated 5th March, 1985 with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition as and when advised. No challenge, however, was thrown to the preliminary notification or declaration under Section 6 of the Act for more than 2 decades since the passing of the said order nor is there any explanation for the failure of the petitioners to do so. The writ petition is blissfully silent as to the reason why the petitioners remained content with the notifications all these years even when the issue of a declaration under Section 6 of the Act had given them the cause of action to challenge the same. The legal position as to the approach to be adopted by the writ Courts while dealing with belated challenges to land acquisition proceedings is settled by a long line of decisions rendered by their lordships of the Supreme Court and those delivered by this Court from time to time. In Aflatoon & Ors. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. (1975) 4 SCC 285 the challenge to the validity of the notification under Section 4 was delayed by 13 years. Dismissing the petition on the ground of delay and laches, the Court observed: ".......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 non qua 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" 2. In Municipal Council, Ahmednagar & Anr. Vs. Shah Hyder Beig & Ors. (2002) 2 SCC 48 , the petitioner challenged the acquisition proceedings after 21 years from the date of preliminary notification and 16 years from the date of the making of the award. The High Court interfered with the acquisition proceedings but setting aside the order passed by the High Court, the Supreme Court cautioned that the Courts ought to give effect to the doctrine of "delay defeats equity". Setting aside the view taken by the High Court, their lordships observed: ".......It is now a well-settled principle of law that while no period of limitation is fixed but in the normal course of events, the period the party is required for filing a civil proceeding ought to be the guiding factor. While it is true that this extraordinary jurisdiction