Petitioner sought alternative plot or compensation for land acquired in 1975 but purchased in 1974 after acquisition declaration. Court held petition barred by laches and violation of transfer restrictions, dismissing writ.
Writ petition dismissed as barred by delay and laches and due to violation of transfer restrictions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~2
Through Ms.Amita Malhotra, Advocate.
versus
ASST. HOUSING COMMISSIONER & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Dev P.Bhardwaj, CGSC with
Ms.Ranjana, Advocate for UOI.
Mr.M.K.Singh, Advocate for R-5.
% Date of Decision: 14 th March, 2016
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
J U D G M E N T
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
Page 1 of 5
W.P.(C) 1519/2003
declined.
Page 2 of 5
W.P.(C) 1519/2003
express mandate of Section 4 of the Delhi Lands (Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1972 (for short ‘the Act’), which regulates the transfer of lands in respect of which acquisition proceedings had been initiated.
“(a) He must have been recorded owner of the land at the time of issuance of preliminary Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.
(b) He must have received compensation.
(c) He should not own a house residential plot in village Abadi in his name or in the name of his spouse or dependents.”
“4. Regulation on transfer of lands in relation to which acquisition proceedings have been initiated.
No person shall, except with the previous permission in writing of the competent authority, transfer or purport to transfer by sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise any land or part thereof situated in the Union territory of Delhi, which is proposed to be acquired in connection with the Scheme and in relation to which a declaration to the effect that such land or part thereof is needed for a public purpose having been made by the Central
Page 3 of 5
W.P.(C) 1519/2003
Government under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Central Government has not withdrawn from the acquisition under section 48 of that Act.”
“ ........Learned Counsel is right in his submission that the provisions of the Limitation act do not as such apply to the
Page 4 of 5
W.P.(C) 1519/2003
granting of relief under Art.226. It appears to us however that the maximum period fixed by the legislature as the time within which the relief by a suit in a civil court must be brought may ordinarily be taken to be a reasonable standard by which delay in seeking remedy under Art.226 can be measured. This Court may consider the delay unreasonable even if it is less than the period of limitation prescribed for a civil action for the remedy but where the delay is more than this period, it will almost always be proper for the Court to hold that it is unreasonable.....”
“ 17. It is true that no limitation has been prescribed for filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but one of the several rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by the superior courts is that the High court will not entertain petitions filed after long lapse of time because that may adversely affect the settled/crystallised rights of the parties. If the writ petition is filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed for filing a civil suit for similar cause, the High Court will treat the delay unreasonable and decline to entertain the grievance of the petitioner on merits.”
( emphasis supplied )
MANMOHAN, J
MARCH 14, 2016 KA
Page 5 of 5
W.P.(C) 1519/2003
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was entitled to allotment of an alternative plot or payment of compensation for an acquired plot purchased after the declaration of acquisition.
Whether the petition is maintainable in view of the delay and laches since dispossession in 1975 and filing in 2003.
Whether the petitioner violated Section 4 of the Delhi Lands (Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1972 by purchasing the land after the acquisition declaration.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Banda Development Authority, Banda Vs. Moti Lal Agarwal & Ors., (2011) 5 SCC 394Referred¶39
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Amrit Kumari
Asst. Housing Commissioner
Manmohan
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
