Petitioner sought return of land acquired by the Union of India decades ago via land acquisition proceedings. The Court dismissed the petition due to extraordinary delay of nearly four decades and lack of entitlement to relief.
Court declined to entertain the petition and dismissed it due to extraordinary delay.
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.
$~22
AJIT SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.S.P.Singh Rathore, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Standing counsel with Ms. Mrinalini Sharma & Mr. Rajiv Jha, Advocates
Mr. Yeeshu Jain & Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for Respondent/ LAC & L & B
CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
O R D E R % 07.12.2018
“(i) direct the respondents to elapse/return the land/property measuring about 11 Bigha 11 Biswas in Khasera No. 587/202 situated within the revenue estate of Village Khichripur, Delhi as per the documents of the petitioner, in the interest of justice.”
“4. That the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioner is seeking the relief (11-11) falling in Khasra number
W.P.(C) 6135/2014
Page 1 of 3
587/202 village Khichripur, however the petitioner has not disclosed the correct description of said khasra number nor the measurement thereto. It is submitted that the khasra number 587/202 consists of four parts/ min i.e 587/202/1/2 (7-09), 587/202/2/2 (12-00), 587/202/1/3 (315) and 587/202/1/4 (7-08). It is submitted that the actual vacant physical possession of subject land falling in khasra numbers 587/202/2/2 (10- 02), 587/202/1/3 (3-15) and 587/202/1/4 (7-08) was duly taken on the spot on 20.11.1975 and handed over to requisition agency on the spot by preparing possession proceeding. The possession of khasra number 587/202/1/2 (7-09) however could not be taken. The compensation of Rs. 45430.09 and Rs. 1045.87 was paid to Khacheru on 12.10.76 and 22.3.78 respectively whereas Rs 22353.45 were sent to Reference Court u/s 30-31 of Act, 1894 on 14.2.1978. The petitioners have also not shown as to how they are entitled to claim the relief in the present writ petition as no mutation document showing their names have been filed.
W.P.(C) 6135/2014
Page 2 of 3
is no narration of what the Petitioner was doing for over 40 years in seeking relief in respect of the land acquisition proceedings. Even otherwise, as pointed out by the Respondents, how the Petitioner is entitled to the relief sought is also not clear.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
SANJEEV NARULA, J.
DECEMBER 07, 2018 mw
W.P.(C) 6135/2014
Page 3 of 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Court can entertain a writ petition seeking return of land acquired over four decades ago when no explanation exists for the extraordinary delay.
Ajit Singh
Union of India
S. Muralidhar
Sanjeev Narula
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
