The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging land acquisition proceedings on merits and due to laches, citing Supreme Court precedents barring stale claims under Section 24 of the 2013 Act, while vacating an interim order.
The writ petition was dismissed; the interim order dated 12th January 2015 was vacated with no order on costs.
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.
$~27
AZHER NISAR SHERWANI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. N.S, Vasisht, Mr. M.P. Bhargava, Advocate
versus
..... Respondents Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel and Ms. Jyoti Tyagi for L&B/LAC
UNION OF INDIA& ORS.
CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
O R D E R
% 11.02.2019
“(i) issue a writ of certiorari and/or any other writ, order or direction of the similar nature declaring the entire acquisition with respect to the said land of the Petitioner having lapsed and further quashing the impugned notification No.F.9(16)/80/L&B dated 25.11.1980 issued under Section 4,notification No. F.9(26)/85/ L&B dated 07.06.1985 issued under Section 6 of the Old Act and the award No. 14/8788with respect to 2 Bighas of land of the Petitioner' comprised in Khasra No. 769/596 (1-0) & 760/596 (1-0), situated in revenue Estate of Village Maidan Garhi, Tehsil Mehrauli,NCT of Delhi.
AND
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other writ, order and direction of the similar nature issuing directions to the Respondents not to disturb or hinder the possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner over 2 Bighas of land of the Petitioner' comprised in Khasra Nos. 760/596 (1-0) &760/596 (1-0), situated in revenue
W.P.(C) 233/2015 Page 1 of 6
Estate of Village Maidan Garhi, Tehsil Mehrauli, NCT of Delhi.
iii) pass any other or further order which this Hon'ble Courtmay deem fit and proper in the interest of justice
Acquisition (Rehabilitation and Resettlement) Act2013 and awarding compensation in terms thereof;”
“the compensation for the KhasraNo.760/596 (2-0) was duly paid to its recorded owner namely Sh. Ram Phal as per his 3/4th Share and 1/4th Share ofthe same in respect of Smt. Rishalo has been sent in RD. It is further submitted that the reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was also sent to the Reference Court for the said 3/4th share of Ram Phal. It is submitted that as per the Ordinance 2014, the compensation has been duly lying deposited in the account specifically maintained for the purpose of disbursement of compensation to the recorded owners thus the acquisition proceedings would not lapse on account of non-payment of compensation to the petitioners.”
W.P.(C) 233/2015 Page 2 of 6
barred by delay and laches. It is further submitted that as per the land records, the land bearing Khasra No.759/596(1-00) &760/596(1-00) was acquired for public purpose for the “planned development of Delhi”. The physical possession of this land was handed over to the DDA by LAC on 16th July 1987. It is submitted that the compensation was received by the original owner Sh. Ramphal which was remitted back to the LAC, however, the Petitioner has not disclosed the particular details of the writ petition filed by the Petitioner or his predecessor directing refund of compensation.
“23. In the instant case, the claim has been made not only belatedly, but neither the petitioners nor their previous three generations had
W.P.(C) 233/2015 Page 3 of 6
ever approached any of the authorities in writing for claiming compensation. No representation had ever been filed with any authority, none has been annexed and there is no averment made in the petition that any such representation had ever been filed. The claim appears not only stale and dead but extremely clouded. This we are mentioning as additional reasons, as such claims not only suffer from delay and laches but courts are not supposed to entertain such claims. Besides such claims become doubtful, cannot be received for consideration being barred due to delay and laches.
“128. In our considered opinion section 24 cannot be used to revive the dead or stale claims and the matters, which have been contested up to this Court or even in the High Court having lost the cases or where reference has been sought for enhancement of the compensation. Compensation obtained and still it is urged that physical possession has not been taken from them, such claims cannot be entertained under the guise of section 24(2). We have come across the cases in which findings have been recorded that by which of drawing a Panchnama, possession has been taken, now again under Section 24(2) it is asserted again that physical possession is still with them. Such claims cannot be entertained in view of the previous decisions in which such plea ought to have been raised and such decisions would operate as res judicata or constructive res judicata. As either the plea raised is negatived or such plea ought to have been raised or was not raised in the previous round of litigation. Section 24 of the Act of 2013 does not supersede or annul the court‟s decision and the provisions cannot be misused to reassert such claims once over again.
W.P.(C) 233/2015 Page 4 of 6
Once Panchnama has been drawn and by way of drawing the Panchnama physical possession has been taken, the case cannot be reopened under the guise of section 24 of Act of 2013.
W.P.(C) 233/2015 Page 5 of 6
costs.
S.MURALIDHAR, J.
SANJEEV NARULA, J.
FEBRUARY 11, 2019 mw
W.P.(C) 233/2015 Page 6 of 6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition regarding land acquisition is barred by laches.
Whether the petitioner can claim compensation under Section 24 of the 2013 Act for a stale claim.
Whether the acquisition proceedings regarding the specific land have lapsed due to delay.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mahavir v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶28
Mahavir v. Union of India (2018) 3 SCC 588 · Who else cites this
Indore Development Authority v. ShailendraReferred¶33
Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (2018) 3 SCC 412 · Who else cites this
Mool Chand v. Union of IndiaReferred¶39
Mool Chand v. Union of India
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Azher Nisar Sherwani
Union of India
DDA
LAC
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
