Delhi High Court - Orders
Ashwani Kumar Khanna & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 February, 2019
Author: S.Muralidhar
Bench: S.Muralidhar, Sanjeev Narula
$~32
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4942/2016
ASHWANI KUMAR KHANNA & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. N.S Vasisht, Mr. M.P. Bhargava,
Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sachin Nawani for L&B/LAC.
Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Nazia Parveen for DDA.
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR
JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 11.02.2019
1. The prayers in the petition read as under:
"(i) issue a writ of certiorari and/or any other writ, order ordirection of the similar nature declaring the entire acquisitionwith respect to 1 Bigha (1008 sq.yds.) land of the Petitionerscomprised in khasra Nos.932/612 (0-8) 937/614 (1-
18),situated in revenue Estate of Village Maidan Garhi, NCTDelhi having lapsed and further quashing the impugnednotification No. F.9(16)/80-L&B dated 25.11.1980 issuedunder section 4, Notification No.F.9(28)/85-L&B dated18.06.1985 issued under Section 6 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 and the Award no.23/87-88 with respect to 1 Bigha(1008 sq.yds.) land of the Petitioners comprised in khasraNos.932/612 (0-8) 937/614 (1-18), situated in revenueEstate of Village Maidan Garhi, NCT Delhi.
AND
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other writ, order anddirection of the similar nature issuing directions to theRespondents not to disturb or hinder the possession andenjoyment of the Petitioners over 1 Bigha (1008 sq.yds.) W.P.(C) 4942/2016 Page 1 of 6 landof the Petitioners comprised in khasra Nos.932/612 (0-
8)937/614 (1-18), situated in revenue Estate of Village MaidanGarhi, NCT Delhi.
iii) pass any other or further order which this Hon'ble Courtmay deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."
2. The narration in the petition reveals that notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 („LAA‟) was issued on 25 th November 1980, followed by declaration under Section 6 of the LAA on 7 th June 1985. The impugned Award No. 23/1987-88 was passed on 17th June 1987. There is no explanation in the petition for the inordinate delay in approaching the Court for relief.
3. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the LAC, it is submitted that the possession of Khasra No. 932/612 (0-8) and 937/614(1-18) was taken and handed over to the DDA on 16th July 1987. It is also submitted that compensation with respect to the subject land has been paid to the original owners. In para 8 of the counter-affidavit, the details of the amount paid are reproduced below:
NAME AMOUNT REMARKS
Chander Singh Rs. 83,292.99/- Paid vide Ch. No.
82526 dated 14.09.87
Kartar Singh Rs. 83,292.99/- Paid vide Ch. No.
82523 dated 14.09.87
Dhaniram Rs. 83,293/- Paid vide Ch. No.
82528 dated 14.09.87
4. In the counter-affidavit filed by the DDA, it is submitted that the petition is barred by delay and laches. It is further submitted that as per the land records, the land bearing Khasra No.932/612 (0-8) and 937/614(1-18) was acquired W.P.(C) 4942/2016 Page 2 of 6 for public purpose for the "planned development of Delhi". The physical possession of this land was handed over to the DDA by LAC on 16 th July 1987. It is submitted that the compensation was disbursed tosurviving sons namely ShriKartar Singh, ShriChanderSingh and ShriDhani Ram of late ShriLekhi Ram vide chequeno. 82527,82526, 82528, dated 14.09.1987 for Rs.82,292.99, Rs.82,292.99 and Rs.83,293.00respectively.
5. No rejoinder has been filed to the counter-affidavit of the DDA or the LAC. In any event, the assertion by the Petitioners that they continue to remain in possession of the land in question or that no compensation has been tendered gives rise to disputed questions of fact which cannot be examined in this petition. The fact further remains that the Petitioners have 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 suchclaims. Besides such claims become doubtful, cannot bereceived for consideration being barred due to delay andlaches.
24. The 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.W.P.(C) 4942/2016 Page 3 of 6
In our opinion, Section 24cannot revive those claims that are dead and stale."
7. The above decision has been re-affirmed by the judgment of a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court 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 bywhich ofdrawing 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.
129. Section 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.
130. We are of the view that stale or dead claims cannot be W.P.(C) 4942/2016 Page 4 of 6 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."
8. The above observations have been followed by this Court in several orders including the order dated 17th 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.
9. Mr. Vasisht contended that since the 2013 Act became effective on 1 st January 2014, the cause of action to claim relief under Section 24 (2) arose only then. Therefore, according to him, the petition cannot be said to be barred by laches.
10. The facts in the present petition speak for themselves. The Award was passed on 17th June 1987 and possession of the lands in question was taken on 16th July 1987. For nearly three decades thereafter the Petitioners took no step too question the land acquisition proceedings. In the circumstances, the observations in para 130 of the decision in Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra(supra) that "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" would W.P.(C) 4942/2016 Page 5 of 6 squarely apply in the present case.
11. For 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.
S.MURALIDHAR, J.
SANJEEV NARULA, J.
FEBRUARY 11, 2019 tr W.P.(C) 4942/2016 Page 6 of 6