Dismissing a writ petition challenging the lapsed status of land acquisition proceedings, this bench held the claim barred by laches and stale because the petitioners failed to approach authorities for compensation over several generations.
Petition dismissed both on grounds of laches and merits.
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.
$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3600/2016
SATISH & ORS ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. N.Prabhakar, Advocate versus
THE HONBLE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR & ORS.... Respondents Through: Mr.Yeeshu Jain & Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for Respondent/LAC/L & B Mr.Nikhil Goel & Mr. Aniruddha Deshmukh, Advocates for Respondent/DDA
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
O R D E R % 09.01.2019
“a. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari/ declaration that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in khasra no. 308 (1 Bigha) and khasra number 309 (5 Bighas) in the village Masoodpur, Tehsil Mehrauli have lapsed in terms of the section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013;
b. direct the respondents to record the names of the petitioners as the owners of the subject land in question;
c. pass any other order/suitable directions as this Honourable court deems just and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
W.P.(C) 3600/2016 Page 1 of 4
W.P.(C) 3600/2016 Page 2 of 4
counter the above assertions.
“23. In the instant case, the claim has been made not only belatedly, but neither the petitioners nor their previous three generations had 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
W.P.(C) 3600/2016 Page 3 of 4
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.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
SANJEEV NARULA, J.
JANUARY 09, 2019
mw
W.P.(C) 3600/2016 Page 4 of 4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether acquisition proceedings for land have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act given the inordinate delay in claiming compensation.
Whether the petition is barred by laches due to the absence of a representation for claiming compensation for several generations.
Whether the High Court had the jurisdiction to examine the disputed question of physical possession in these proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mahavir v. Union of IndiaFollowed¶22
Mahavir v. Union of India (2018) 3 SCC 588 · Who else cites this
Devender Singh v. Hon'Lt. GovernorRelied on¶9
Devender Singh v. Hon'Lt. Governor
Bhule Ram v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶9
Bhule Ram v. Union of India
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SATISH & ORS
THE HONBLE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR & ORS
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
