The Court dismissed a writ petition seeking a declaration that land acquisition proceedings were deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act due to non-implementation. Rejecting the claim due to inordinate delay and laches, the Court cited Supreme Court precedents barring stale claims under the 2013 Act.
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.
$~44
PRATAP SINGH & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Syed Hasan Isfahani with Mr. Vikas Yadav, Advocates
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .... Respondents Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel and Ms. Shilpi Chand for L&B/LAC
CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA
O R D E R % 15.04.2019
CM APPL. No. 17799/2019(exemption)
W.P.(C) No. 3927/2019 & CM APPL. No. 17798/2019
W.P.(C) 3927/2019 Page 1 of 5
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013 as till date the physical possession of the land had not been taken and no compensation has been paid though the award was passed in the year 1986; and
b) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to release the land of the petitioners; and
c) pass such and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”
W.P.(C) 3927/2019 Page 2 of 5
“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 hadever 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.
W.P.(C) 3927/2019 Page 3 of 5
“130. We are of the view that stale or dead claims cannot be the subject-matter of judicial probing under section 24 of the Act of2013. The provisions of section 24 do not invalidate those judgment/orders of the courts where under rights/claims have been lost/negatived, neither do they 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.”
W.P.(C) 3927/2019 Page 4 of 5
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
I.S. MEHTA, J.
APRIL 15, 2019 rd
W.P.(C) 3927/2019 Page 5 of 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can entertain a petition for declaration of lapsing of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act given the inordinate delay of over three decades without
Whether the doctrine of laches bars the grant of relief for deemed lapsing of land acquisition proceedings where the claim is stale and the claimants failed to approach authorities long before.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mahavir v. Union of IndiaReferred¶24
Mahavir v. Union of India (2018) 3 SCC 588 · Who else cites this
Indore Development Authority v. ShailendraReferred¶27
Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (2018) 3 SCC 412 · Who else cites this
Indore Development Authority v. Shyam VermaReferred¶29
Indore Development Authority v. Shyam Verma (2018) 4 SCC 405 · Who else cites this
Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misrimal SolankiReferred¶29
Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki
Mool Chand v. Union of IndiaExplained¶29
Mool Chand v. Union of India 2019 (173) DRJ 595 DB
Pratap Singh & Ors.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
S. MURALIDHAR
I.S. MEHTA
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
