Judgment:
$~18 * + JAGJIT GREWAL IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 9762/2015 ........ Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.P. Bhargava, Advocate. UNION OF INDIA & ORS versus ........ RESPONDENTS
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain and Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for LAC/L&B. Mr. Arun Birbal and Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA ORDER
1912.2018 % Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:
1. The prayer in this writ petition is for a declaration that the acquisition proceedings in respect of land admeasuring 2 bighas and 4 biswas in khasra No.760/596 situated in the Revenue Estate of village Maidan Garhi, New Delhi (hereafter „the land in question‟) has lapsed in view of Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 („the 2013 Act‟).
2. The facts as stated by the... Petitioner
herself are that in respect of the land in question, a notification was issued on 25th November 1980 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LAA), which was followed by the declaration dated 18th June 1985 under Section 6 of the LAA. The land acquisition W.P. (C) 9762 of 2015 Page 1 of 7 proceedings culminated in an Award No.23/87-88.
3. According to the... Petitioner
, her predecessor had received the compensation for the said land under “protest”. It is stated that after the judgment dated 15th May 1989 of the Division Bench (DB) of this Court in Balbir Singh v. Union of India 39 (1989) DLT233 the predecessor of the... Petitioner
returned the compensation amount along with 12 percent interest by cheque No.930291 dated 13th July 1989 in the sum of Rs. 12,86,274/-. According to the... Petitioner
, both the requisites for seeking a declaration under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act stand satisfied in the present petition viz., (i) that since the compensation has been returned, it should be held that no compensation has been received for the acquisition of the land in question and (ii) the fact that actual physical possession of the land has not been taken by the... RESPONDENTS
and continues to remain with the... Petitioner
.
4. It is averred in para 8.3 of the writ petition that the predecessor of the... Petitioner
, Shri Ramphal, had bequeathed the land in question to the... Petitioner
by a Will dated 14th June 1996 and that after the expiry of Shri Ramphal, the... Petitioner
became the owner of the land. The ownership is therefore traced to a Will and not to any registered sale deed. The undisputed fact is that the Will was not probated. Also, it is not disputed that after the expiry of Shri Ramphal the... Petitioner
never approached the... RESPONDENTS
for mutation of the land in question in her name. In fact, till the filing of the present writ petition on 9th October 2015 no attempt appears to be made by the... Petitioner
to assert her ownership qua the land in question. W.P. (C) 9762 of 2015 Page 2 of 7 5. In reply to the petition, it is pointed out by the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) that, the records revealed that the actual physical vacant possession of the land was taken on the spot on 16th July 1987 and handed over to the DDA. Compensation was paid to Shri Ramphal by cheque No.81069 dated 9th September 1987 in the sum of Rs. 10,52,884.69/-. It is pointed out that the Will is unregistered and as such is not admissible in evidence. Further, the... Petitioner
has contravened provisions in the Delhi Land Restriction on Transfer Act 1971, the Registration Act, 1908 and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It is submitted that at no point in time did the... Petitioner
challenge the acquisition proceedings. It is pointed out by the LAC that the petition is also barred by laches.
6. On its part, the DDA has filed a reply more or less taking the same stand as the LAC. It is added that the physical vacant possession was taken over by DDA from the Land and Building Department on 16th July 1987. It is averred that the land in question is in the possession of the DDA and is part of the „Tilpat Valley Bio-Diversity Park‟.
7. In the course of his submission, learned counsel for the... Petitioner
referred to the decision in Balbir Singh v. Union of India (supra) where the DB of this Court recorded the stand of the DDA in that case that “no effort would be made to take possession of any land from anybody and the possession already taken of these lands will be restored back to the land owners on receipt of the refund of compensation if made with interest”. It is also submitted that the directions permitting the return of compensation was made applicable not only to the said... Petitioner
but “all other land owners as W.P. (C) 9762 of 2015 Page 3 of 7 well”.
8. It is seen that the opening para of the judgment states that it disposes of certain writ petitions challenging the land acquisition proceedings in relation to the cluster of villages which includes the Revenue Estate of village Maidan Garhi, where the land in question is located. However, the admitted position is that Shri Ramphal, the predecessor of the present... Petitioner
, was not one of the... Petitioner
s in the said batch of writ petitions. A careful reading of the said decision reveals that in para 2, the DB of this Court has stated “consequently, we direct that the possession of the... Petitioner
s will not be disturbed except in cases where the compensation has been received by the land owners or alternate talks have been allotted until the compensation amount that the alternate plot surrendered.” It is, therefore, clear from the said portion of the judgment that those directions were intended to apply only to the... Petitioner
s in the Balbir Singh case and not to those who were not before this Court in that batch.
9. It is another matter that the true purport of the judgment in Balbir Singh(supra) stood explained subsequently by the Supreme Court in Delhi Administration v. Gurdeep Singh Uban (2007) 7 SCC296 In other words, the directions were limited to the... Petitioner
s in that case and were not intended to apply to all others who are not before the Court, for instance predecessor in interest of the present... Petitioner
.
10. Consequently, if the predecessor in interest of the petitioner chose to return the compensation of his own then, relying on of the decision in Balbir W.P. (C) 9762 of 2015 Page 4 of 7 Singh (supra) no benefit could have been derived therefrom by him. The decision in in Balbir Singh (supra) was not intended to benefit those who were not party to that decision.
11. Further at this distance in time with records not being available with the... RESPONDENTS
, it is not possible for them to confirm if, in fact, the compensation was returned as claimed by the... Petitioner
. However, it is revealing that from the stand point of the... Petitioner
herself, she has not proceeded on the basis that the earlier land acquisition proceedings stood quashed as a result of the decision in Balbir Singh (supra). If that were the case, then the... Petitioner
would have made some attempt on the basis of the Will in her favour to have the land mutated in her name or done something to assert her ownership of the land in question. She appears to have made no such effort whatsoever till the filing of the present petition, which is after the 2013 Act came into force. The very fact that the... Petitioner
is in this petition filed in 2015 seeking a declaration that the land acquisition proceedings must be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act is a clear admission that the said land acquisition proceedings have continued unchallenged by her predecessor in interest and later by her till the filing of the present petition.
12. That then brings up the question whether the... Petitioner
can be permitted 26 years after the so-called return of compensation and more than 27 years after the Award, to question the land acquisition proceedings.
13. This Court has passed several orders in the recent past following the W.P. (C) 9762 of 2015 Page 5 of 7 decision of the Supreme Court in Mahavir v. Union of India (2018) 3 SCC588 declining to accept the plea of the... Petitioner
that notwithstanding that many years have lapsed after the passing of the Award, the 2013 Act gives a fresh cause of action to a... Petitioner
to question the land acquisition proceedings. The following observations in Mahavir v. Union of India are relevant in this context: “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 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.
24. The High Court has rightly observed that such claims cannot be permitted to be raised in the court, and cannot be adjudicated as they are barred. The High Court has rightly observed that such claims cannot be a subject matter of inquiry after the lapse of a reasonable period of time and beneficial provisions of Section 24 of the 2013 Act are not available to such incumbents. In our opinion, Section 24 cannot revive those claims that are dead and stale.” 14. In the present case also the Court is satisfied that the... Petitioner
is seeking to challenge the land acquisition proceedings long after they have attained finality. There is no valid explanation for the inordinate delay in approaching the Court. Consequently, the prayers made in this writ petition cannot be granted. W.P. (C) 9762 of 2015 Page 6 of 7 15. The petition is dismissed on the ground of laches. The interim orders stand vacated, the application is dismissed. S. MURALIDHAR, J.
SANJEEV NARULA, J.
DECEMBER19 2018 nk W.P. (C) 9762 of 2015 Page 7 of 7