Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The building in question which houses the petitioners tenements is owned by one Mr. Ambalal Maganlal Patel. The land along with building was subject matter of acquisition by the respondent No.2/Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority, (for short "the MMRDA"). The acquisition was for a public purpose namely for the Mumbai Metro Project i.e. for the Mumbai, Versova, Ghatkopar and Andheri Metro Railway.

4. It appears from the record that the MMRDA had taken steps to acquire various lands for such public purpose, initially, by taking recourse to settlement with the owners of the different lands, and wherever settlement could not be achieved, as in the present case, by issuance of a notification under Section 11 of the Kiran Kawre 2 of 12 18-WP-1066-2023.doc Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short "the 2013 Act").

7. It is stated in the reply-affidavit filed by the MMRDA that the landlord handed over possession of the lands to the MMRDA accepting the award amount of about Rs.10.5 crores. He also executed a possession receipt which was counter signed by the official of the MMRDA. It is stated that subsequent thereto on 20 May 2021 the MMRDA addressed letters to the occupants of the buildings that a hearing would be fixed to take a decision on the affected persons including the petitioners to be offered an option of either to rehabilitate such persons by providing alternate premises in four colonies available with the MMRDA or compensation to be offered as per the computation in the impugned award.

11. On the other hand Mr. Mone, learned counsel for the MMRDA has made submissions drawing our attention to the reply- affidavit filed on behalf of the MMRDA. Mr. Mone's primary objection is that the petition is barred by delay and laches. He submits that the memo of petition does offer any explanation to explain such long delay of three years in filing the present petition. He would next submit that the petition also suffer for non-joinder of necessary parties. In such context it is submitted that the petitioners have become wiser after reply affidavit was filed by the MMRDA, inasmuch as, now an Interim Application has been filed to add respondents including the landlord, as party respondents to the petition. Mr. Mone would next submit that the petitioners contention that there is change in the public purpose, is untenable, inasmuch as the MMRDA's requirement of the land in question for the purpose for which it was acquired persists and/or whatever works which are sought to be undertaken by removing the buildings are works which are completely within the scope of Kiran Kawre 6 of 12 18-WP-1066-2023.doc the metro project for which the lands were acquired. In supporting such submission, Mr. Mone has drawn our attention to the relevant paragraphs in the reply affidavit to submit that there is no change whatsoever in the purpose of acquisition.

13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, we have also perused the record.

14. At the outset, we may observe that there is much substance in contention as urged on behalf of the MMRDA that the petition is hit by the doctrine of delay and laches. We have perused the Kiran Kawre 7 of 12 18-WP-1066-2023.doc memo of the petition, there is not a whisper nay any explanation on the inordinate delay on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court to challenge the impugned award dated 29 January 2020, by filing this petition in January 2023 after a lapse of almost 3 years from the passing of the impugned award. In such context Dr. Tulzapurkar making a reference to the recent notice dated 6 March 2023 would submit that the delay ought not to be considered as fatal, inasmuch as now it has come to the notice of the petitioners, that the purpose of the acquisition itself is for security and/or for movement of the fire engines and not actually for the purpose of Metro line-1 i.e. Versova, Andheri and Ghatkopar, Metro Project. It is hence submitted that for such reason it be considered that there are no delay and laches in filing the present proceedings. We do not accept Dr. Tulzapurkar's submission that the delay in the present proceedings is not fatal, for more that one reason. Firstly, the petitioners are mere tenants/ sub-tenants of the small portion of the premises subject matter of acquisition, who at no point of time raised any objection responding to the land acquisition notices issued by the MMRDA as fairly conceded by Dr. Tulzapurkar. The petitioners cannot be sitting on the fence. Dr. Tulzapurkar was unable to satisfy the Court on any objection being raised by the petitioners to either Kiran Kawre 8 of 12 18-WP-1066-2023.doc Section 11 notices or any further notices in relation to the acquisition in question, till the passing of the award. Thus, by following the lawful procedure, the MMRDA has published the impugned award. Secondly, when the basic notifications issued for acquisition of the land were not challenged by the petitioners and/ or the petitioners had acquiesced in such notifications and notices, leading to the acquisition in question, it would not be open for the petitioners to approach the Court and belatedly and blanketly challenge the land acquisition award, when the different lands in the scheme of the acquisition of which the land in question is a part are already is being utilised for the metro work of which substantial work is already completed.