Tarun Mittal v. Union of India & Anr

O R D E R %

05.02.2019

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

" It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon Court may be pleased to issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of the acquisition proceedings with respect to the lands comprised in Khasra Nos.94 (3-18) and 95 (5-02), situated in the revenue estate of village Mandawali Fazalpur, Delhi acquired vide Award No.49-C/70-71/Suppl. Pronounced on 22.12.1982 and further to pass appropriate writ, order or directions declaring the acquisition proceedings to have lapsed and have become inoperative under sec.24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act of 2013 as neither possession of the lands of the petitioner have been taken nor compensation with respect to lands have been paid.. Award cost of proceedings to the humble petitioner.

The Hon 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 13th November 1959 followed by declaration under Section 6 LAA on 12th July 1966. The impugned Award No.49-C/70-71/Suppl. was passed on 22nd December 1982. Thereafter the petition straightaway refers to the passing of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("2013 Act") and that since compensation for the subject lands has not been paid, nor physical possession taken, the acquisition proceedings stand lapsed.

¶3In the counter-affidavit filed by the LAC, it is stated that the "Agreement to Sell" entered into with his father and relied upon by the Petitioner to claim any rights with respect to the subject land is infructuous and cannot be enforced, and that the father of the Petitioner was never the recorded owner of the land. It is further submitted that physical possession of the subject land was duly taken on 3rd March 1983 and handed over to the DDA on the spot. Compensation of Rs.84416/- was also sent to the Reference Court on 23rd July 1985 as "there was an apportionment dispute and the recorded owner was one Ram Mehar".

¶4In the counter-affidavit filed by the DDA, it is submitted that the Petitioner is claiming to be the owner of land bearing Khasra Nos. 422 and 423 admeasuring 3 bigha 11 biswas in village MandawaliFazalpur, however as per the land record register, the land bearing Khasra Nos. 422/1 (0-14), 422/2 (0-10) and 423/1 (4-9) was acquired by Award No.2179 for planned development of Delhi and physical possession of this land was handed over to the DDA by the LAC/L&B Department on 3rd December 1968. A copy

of the possession proceedings have been enclosed with the affidavit.

¶5No rejoinder has been filed by the Petitioner to the counter affidavit of the LAC or the DDA to contest the assertions regarding taking over of the possession and compensation with respect to the subject land. Be that as it may, the assertion by the Petitioner that he continued to remain in possession of the land in question gives rise to a disputed question of facts. The fact remains that the Petitioner has no explanation to offer for the inordinate delay in approaching the Court for the relief.

6.On 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."

¶7The 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. Once Panchnama has been drawn and by way of drawing the Panchnama physical 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."

¶8The above observations have been followed by this Court in several orders including the order dated 10th January, 2019 in WP(C) No. 4528/2015 (Mool Chand v.Union of India) and similar petitions have been dismissed on the ground of laches.

¶9For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed both on the ground of laches as well as on merits, but in the circumstances, with no orders as to costs. The pending application is dismissed.

S.MURALIDHAR, J.

SANJEEV NARULA, J. FEBRUARY 05, 2019 mw

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8858/2015& CM APPL. 19845/2015 TARUN MITTAL ..... Petitioner Through: None. versus UNION OF INDIA&ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for LAC/L&B. Mr Arjun Pant, Advocate for Respondent/DDA. CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA