Delhi High Court - Orders
Sh. Fateh Singh & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 4 April, 2022
Author: Mukta Gupta
Bench: Mukta Gupta, Neena Bansal Krishna
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5645/2022
SH. FATEH SINGH & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Represented by: Mr.B.P. Gupta and Mr.B.D.
Sharma, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for
Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel
for respondent No.1 and 2.
Ms.Mrinalini Sen, Advocate for
respondent No.5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
ORDER
% 04.04.2022
CM APPL.16794/2022 (exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 5645/2022
1. Notice.
2. Learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and states that the petition is barred by delay and laches.
3. Notice is also accepted by learned counsel for the respondent No.5.
4. Notice be now issued to Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 on the petitioners taking steps through email, SMS, whatsapp, speed post and courier as also through the learned Standing Counsel returnable before this Court on 14th September, 2022.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA W.P.(C) 5645/2022 Page 1 of 3 Signing Date:06.04.2022 18:49:385. Reply affidavit be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed within four weeks thereafter.
6. By this petition vide prayer (a) the petitioners seek writ declaring the acquisition proceedings initiated in respect of the land of the petitioners admeasuring 2 bighas 9 biswas comprising in Khasra No.10/5/2 (1-8) and 6/1(1-1) situated in the revenue estate of Village Pochanpur, New Delhi as deemed to have lapsed in view of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners orally contends that neither the petitioners have been paid compensation nor the possession of the land has been taken and thus the declaration as sought be granted.
8. A perusal of prayer (b) in the petition notes that the petitioners are seeking restoration of the possession from the respondents thereby admitting that the possession has been taken over by the respondents.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners refers to the land acquisition payment certificate dated 19th July, 2016 which is annexed as Annexure- P3 to the present petition which notes that the possession has not been taken of the said land.
10. When this Court pointed out that the prayer (b) is rendered infructuous as the possession has not been taken, then the learned counsel for the petitioners states that as per the demarcation report possession is taken but the same has been taken illegally. It is thus evident that the petitioners do not have possession of the property.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks some time to satisfy this Court that in case the possession was taken illegally, the case of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA W.P.(C) 5645/2022 Page 2 of 3 Signing Date:06.04.2022 18:49:38 petitioners will not be covered by the Constitution Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as 2020 (8) SCC 129 Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal & Ors.
12. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
APRIL 04, 2022 'vn' Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA W.P.(C) 5645/2022 Page 3 of 3 Signing Date:06.04.2022 18:49:38