Dismissed

Sharma and Company v. Land Acqusition Collector (South-East) and Ors.

Delhi HC7 Jan 2019W.P.(C)/1475/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner sought direction to acquire land or restore possession after alleged illegal possession by authorities for over 30 years. Court dismissed petition on grounds of laches, noting the petitioner abandoned a 1989 suit after 21 years and failed to take steps for decades despite having knowledge of possession.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's prayer for pass of writ directing authorities to notify land afresh or pay compensation/restore possession is dismissed.

Sharma and Company Vs Land Acqusition Collector (South-East)… — Land Acquisition | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~27

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 1475/2015

¶4

SHARMA AND COMPANY ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Anuroop P.S., Advocate

¶5

versus

¶6

LAND ACQUSITION COLLECTOR (SOUTH-EAST) AND ORS

¶7

..... Respondents Through Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing counsel with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for Respondent/L & B/LAC Mr.G.D.Mishra, Standing counsel for Respondent No.2/SDMC

¶8

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for Respondent/UOI Mr.Pawan Mathur with Mr. Om Pal Kanungo, Advocates for Respondent/DDA

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶10

O R D E R % 07.01.2019

¶11

The Petitioner has approached this Court seeking reliefs as under:-

¶12

“Pass a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to notify the land afresh and acquire the land comprised in khasra No. 63/1 (0-8), 437/1(0-9), 450/2 (1-02), 456/1(517), 456/2/2 (1-01), 523/2 (0-15), 631/2 (13-19), 632/1, 2(7-09) in all measuring 31 Bighas situated in the revenue estate of village Bahapur, New Delhi and in case the authorities do not acquire the land assess and pay the compensation amount, in that eventuality a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the authorities to restore possession of 31 Bighas land which is in their illegal and unlawful possession.

¶13

W.P.(C) 1475/2015

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

ii. Pass such other and further order/directions as deemed fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶16

iii. Cost of the proceedings be also awarded to the humble petitioner.”

¶17

The list of dates notes that the earliest of the Awards was passed on 13^th March, 1962. Even according to the Petitioner, the acquiring agency took actual physical possession of the entire land of 21 bighas and 6 biswas comprising Khasra No. 631/1 and 1-09 of Khasra No. 523/1 on 10^th August, 1962. Another Award was passed on 23^rd July, 1962 in respect of Khasra No.450/2 (4-12) and Khasra No.437/1/1 (15 biswas ). A third award was passed on 24^th January, 1968 in respect of Khasra No.456 (62-08) where possession of the entire land was taken on 28^th March, 1968. The fourth award was passed on 19^th September, 1986 in respect of Khasra No.632 where possession of the entire land was taken on 22^nd September, 1986.

¶18

There was no indication by the Petitioner in the petition as to what either the Petitioner or the predecessors-in-interest of the Petitioner were doing since the abovementioned dates. According to counsel for the Petitioner, on 4^th May, 1988 the Petitioner applied for demarcation of the holdings of the Petitioner with respect to the land in question and in the same year he also filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. That suit was dismissed in default on 3^rd March, 2009. Effectively therefore, between the last of the awards in 1986 and 3^rd March, 2009, except filing of the suit which was dismissed in default, no steps appear to have been taken in with respect to the land acquisition proceedings by the Petitioner.

¶19

W.P.(C) 1475/2015

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

It is then stated that the Petitioner was seeking information under the RTI Act from 2012 onwards till 2013 Act came to be passed.

¶22

When faced with the prospect of the petition being dismissed on account of laches, learned counsel for the Petitioner sought leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh petition offering a better explanation. While in many other cases the Court has granted that indulgence, in this case, the Court finds that the Petitioner already took a shot by filing a civil suit in 1989 which he abandoned 21 years later by allowing it to get dismissed for default.

¶23

In such circumstances, the Court is not inclined to grant any further indulgence to the Petitioner.

¶24

The petition is dismissed on the ground of laches.

¶25

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

¶26

SANJEEV NARULA, J.

¶27

JANUARY 07, 2019 mw

¶28

W.P.(C) 1475/2015

¶29

Page 3 of 3

Sharma and Company v. Land Acqusition Collector (South-East) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharma and Company v. Land Acqusition Collector (South-East) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Moet Hennessy India Private Limited Vs Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax Special Range - 6, New Delhi

Moet Hennessy India Private Limited Vs Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax Special RANGE-6, New Delhi

Moet Hennessy India Private Limited Vs Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax Special Range - 6, New Delhi

Sheetal Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sukhbir Singh & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Dr. (Ms.) Banti M. Singh Vs University of Delhi and Anr.

Bipin Kumar Yadav and Ors. Vs New Delhi Municipal Council

Hemant Verma @ Hemant Gogna Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Rakesh Dhingra Vs National Scheduled Castes Finance & Development Corporation and Ors.

Poonnamma Vishwanathan Vs M/S Moolchand Khairati Ram Hospital & Ayurvedic Research Institute

Balram and Ors. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Jai Prakash Vs the State Govt of NCT Delhi & Ors.

Sh. Rajesh Kumar and Ors. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Prakash and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.