High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the validity of an old land acquisition award under the 2013 Act. The court held the petition lacked sufficient explanation for the delay and barred the claim as stale.
Petition dismissed on ground of delay and laches; pending application also dismissed.
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.
$~6
SARVESH TYAGI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sumit Sarna, Advocate.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Pawan Mathur, Standing counsel for DDA. Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Advocate with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for LAC/L&B.
CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
O R D E R % 07.02.2019
“issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring that the land acquisition proceeding initiated by the notification dated 4.9.1967 under Section 4 and declaration dated 2.9.1970 under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act qua the petitioner land bearing Khasra No. 30/2 of Village Wazirabad, Delhi resulting in Award No. 240/1986-87 as having lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.”
Page 1 of 4
W.P.(C) 795/2019
with liberty to file a fresh petition properly explaining the delay in approaching the Court.
Shri Anoop Singh Tyagi was not aware about the acquisition nor filed any petition against the same. Shri Anoop Singh Tyagi also did not receive any compensation and was also not informed/ intimated about any compensation being deposited before Hon'ble Court by Respondents.
Petitioner and his brothers were also not aware about the acquisition till August, 2016 when they wanted to sell above land. Petitioner came to now that above land was acquired and therefore cannot be sold.”
Page 2 of 4
W.P.(C) 795/2019
“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. 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.
Page 3 of 4
W.P.(C) 795/2019
judgment/orders of the courts where under rights/claims have been lost/negatived, neither do they revive those rights which have come 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.”
S.MURALIDHAR, J
SANJEEV NARULA, J
FEBRUARY 07, 2019 ss
Page 4 of 4
W.P.(C) 795/2019
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a claim regarding lapsed land acquisition proceedings initiated decades ago can be entertained under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
Whether the petition suffers from delay and laches warranting dismissal.
Whether stale claims can be revived judicially under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Indore Development Authority v. ShailendraRelied on¶25
Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (2018) 3 SCC 412 · Who else cites this
Pune Municipal CorporationReferred¶26
Pune Municipal Corporation
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sarvesh Tyagi
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
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
