This petition challenged a land acquisition award and sought release under Section 24 of the 2013 Act. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the claims were barred by laches and that Section 24 cannot revive stale claims.
W.P. dismissed on ground of laches and on merits; interim order vacated; no orders as to 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.
$~51 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3373/2016
MAHENDRA KUMAR & ORS ..... Petitioners Through Ms. Jyoti Kataria Bajaj, Advocate Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha & Mr. M.S.Akhtar, Advocates for Respondent LAC/GNCTD
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
O R D E R % 19.07.2019
1. The corrected order will read as under:-
“ W.P.(C) 3373/2016 MAHENDRA KUMAR & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. NS Vasisht, Mr MP Bhargava and Mr. Vishal Singh, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr Roshan Lal Goel and Ms Anju Gupta, Advocates for UOI. Mr Dhanesh Relan, Standing counsel for Respondent/DDA with Ms. Gauri Chaturvedi, Advocates.
CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA
WP (C) 3373/2016
Page 1 of 7
O R D E R % 17.05.2019
1. The prayers in the petition read as under:
(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 land to 2 Bigha 18 Biswas of land comprised in Khasra No.1467 (New No.908), situated in the revenue estate of village Mehrauli, NCT of Delhi having lapsed and further quashing the impugned notification No.F.15(iii)/59-LSG dated 13.11.1959 issued under Section 4, Notification No.F.4(98)/64-L&H dated 07.12.1966 issued under section 6 of the Old Land Acquisition Act and the Award No.83/82-83 dated 25.03.1983 with respect to 2 Bigha 18 Biswas of land comprised in Khasra No.1467 (New No.908), situated in the revenue estate of village 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 Petitioners over 2 Bigha 18 Biswas of land comprised in Khasra No.1467 (New No.908), situated in the revenue estate of village Mehrauli, NCT of Delhi.”
WP (C) 3373/2016 Page 2 of 7
dismissed by this Court by order dated 1st December 1995. SLP (C) No.5916 of 1996 filed in the Supreme Court against the said order was dismissed.
WP (C) 3373/2016
Page 3 of 7
regards possession and the status of compensation paid for the land in question gives rise to disputed questions of fact which cannot be examined in the present writ petition. The fact further remains that the Petitioners have no explanation to offer for the inordinate delay in approaching the Court for the relief.
WP (C) 3373/2016
Page 4 of 7
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 e misused to reassert such claims once over again. 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.
WP (C) 3373/2016
Page 5 of 7
revive those rights which have become barred, either due to inaction or otherwise by operation of law. Fraudulent and stale claims are not at all to be raised under the guise of section 24. Misuse of provisions of section 24(2) cannot be permitted. Protection by the courts in cases of such blatant misuse of the provisions of law could never have been the intention behind enacting the provisions of section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act; and, by the decision laid down in Pune Municipal Corporation ( supra ), and this Court never, even for a moment, intended that such cases would be received or entertained by the courts.”
WP (C) 3373/2016
Page 6 of 7
(2014) 3 SCC 183 regarding the tendering of compensation, and on certain other issues but not on the question of petitions seeking declaration under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act being barred by laches. This legal position was explained by this Court recently in Mool Chand v. Union of India 2019 (173) DRJ 595 DB .
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
TALWANT SINGH, J.
JULY 19, 2019 mw
WP (C) 3373/2016
Page 7 of 7
3 issues framed by the court
Whether relief under section 24 of the 2013 Act is available when the land acquisition proceedings were contested and lost decades ago due to inaction.
Whether a petition for release from acquisition barred by laches can be entertained after the passage of the 2013 Act.
Whether physical possession remains with petitioners when a prior award was passed and possession released to the acquiring authority.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mahavir v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶29
Mahavir v. Union of India (2018) 3 SCC 588 · Who else cites this
Indore Development Authority v. ShailendraRelied on¶32
Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (2018) 3 SCC 412 · Who else cites this
Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misrimal SolankiReferred¶43
Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki
Indore Development Authority v. Shyam VermaDistinguished¶44
Indore Development Authority v. Shyam Verma (2018) 4 SCC 405 · Who else cites this
Mool Chand v. Union IndiaRelied on¶46
Mool Chand v. Union India 2019 (173) DRJ 595 DB
3 provisions across 2 enactments
MAHENDRA KUMAR & ORS.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
S.MURALIDHAR
TALWANT SINGH
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
