Dismissed

Naider (Deceased) Thr His Lr v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC27 Aug 2024CM(M)/3224/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition challenging an order from 2016 regarding the impleadment of legal representatives in a land acquisition reference. The court held the petitioner guilty of laches, noting the award had already been passed, and refused indulgence for alleged ignorance.

What the court decided

AI extract

Naider (Deceased) Thr His Lr Vs Union of India & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~79

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of decision^: 27^th August, 2024

¶4

- CM(M) 3224/2024 & CM APPL. 48720-48722/2024

¶5

NAIDER (DECEASED) THR HIS LR .....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Mittan Lal and Mr. Mohit Dharma, Advocates

¶7

versus

¶8

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha & Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Advocates for R-1/UOI/LAC

¶9

Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel for DDA

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

¶11

J U D G M E N T (oral)

¶12

CM APPL. 48721/2024 (exemption)

¶13

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶14

CM(M) 3224/2024 & CM APPL. 48720/2024 & CM APPL. 48722/2024

¶15

Two brothers i.e. Niader and Khachedu filed a Reference Petition under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1984.

¶16

The aforesaid Reference Petition was filed way back in the year 1987. 3. During the proceedings of the above-said Reference Petition, both the petitioners died.

¶17

Learned Trial Court took up the matter on 06.08.2016 while considering the issue of bringing on record their legal representatives.

¶18

CM(M) 3224/2024 1

¶19

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 8.08.2024 14:33:02

¶20

Niader had reportedly died on 13.03.1987. He left behind his widow and two daughters and had also allegedly executed a Will in favour of Ram Wati. 5. According to learned Trial Court, since Niader was the recorded owner of the land in question, no one else had any right, title or interest to execute Will in respect of such land and since he had executed a Will in favour of Ram Wati, Ram Wati was impleaded as his legal representative and rest of the applications moved on behalf of other legal representatives of Niader were dismissed.

¶21

The present petition has been filed by Gian Wati, who is stated to be daughter of Niader. Learned counsel for petitioner has, very fairly, admitted that when the arguments were heard by the learned Trial Court with respect to the aforesaid aspect qua bringing on record LRs of Niader, she was also before the learned Trial Court. It is, however, contended that she could not understand the implication of dismissal of her such request and learnt about the same only when the award was, eventually, passed.

¶22

It is in the aforesaid premise that present application has been moved with the prayer that said order dated 06.08.2016 may be set aside.

¶23

Obviously, much water has flown under the bridge.

¶24

The request was considered by learned Trial Court way back on 06.08.2016 when the petitioner herein was also duly represented before the learned Reference Court. For the reasons best known to the petitioner herein, no steps were immediately taken and said order was never challenged before any Court at any previous point of time.

¶25

It is also admitted fact that Reference Petition has already been disposed of as there is already an award passed by learned Reference Court on 15.04.2024.

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

CM(M) 3224/2024 2

¶28

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 8.08.2024 14:33:02

¶29

Petitioner cannot be permitted to take shelter behind her alleged illiteracy and ignorance particularly in view of the fact that she was duly represented before the learned Trial Court when the request for impleadment was being considered.

¶30

There was no one to stop her from filing any petition challenging the aforesaid order dated 06.08.2016, if she was actually feeling aggrieved by such order.

¶31

Though there is no period of limitation fixed in context of Article 227 of the Constitution of India but the petitioner cannot be given any indulgence. Her inaction is writ large and being guilty of laches, she cannot be permitted to raise grievance after eight years, particularly when the Reference Petition has already been disposed and the award has been passed.

¶32

Viewed thus, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Same is accordingly dismissed.

¶33

This is, however, clarified that this order would not come in way of the petitioner, if she can avail any other legally permissible recourse under law.

¶34

(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE

¶35

AUGUST 27, 2024/ dr

¶36

CM(M) 3224/2024 3

¶37

Signature Not Verified

¶38

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 8.08.2024 14:33:02

Naider (Deceased) Thr His Lr v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Naider (Deceased) Thr His Lr v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neel Kamal Madan Vs Shyam Sunder Suri & Anr.

Sh. Arun Navariya Vs Sh. Naresh & Ors.

Veer Singh through Power of Attorney Vs Kinri Dhir

Asha Rani Sukhija Vs Pankaj Sikri

Praveen Kumar Vs Jyoti

Mohd Hanif Vs Jaideep Chaudhary

Lalit Kumar Vs Shri Ved Pal & Ors.

Galgotias University Vs Icon Facilitators Private Limited

Neel Kamal Madan Vs Shyam Sunder Suri & Anr.

Sh. Arun Navariya Vs Sh. Naresh & Ors.

Veer Singh through Power of Attorney Vs Kinri Dhir

Swami Chakrapani Ji Maharaj National President, Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha Vs Election Commission of India & Ors.

Cameo Overseas Vs the Global - v Immigration & Ors.

Arun Kumar Deshwal Vs Kapoor Plastic Works