Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 1374/2013
LAXMI NARAIN SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Umesh Shandilya, Adv.
W.P.(C) 1374/2013
LAXMI NARAIN SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Umesh Shandilya, Adv.
VERSUS
THE GOVT. OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Sanjeev Sahay, Adv.
Through Mr. Sanjeev Sahay, Adv.
W.P.(C) 1378/2013
BABU RAM SHARMA THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES ..... Petitioner
Mr. Umesh Shandilya, Adv.
Through
BABU RAM SHARMA THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES ..... Petitioner
Mr. Umesh Shandilya, Adv.
Through
VERSUS
W.P.(C) 1384/2013
CHANDER KANTA (DEASED)THROUGH SH. LAXMI NARAIN SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Umesh Shandilya, Adv.
CHANDER KANTA (DEASED)THROUGH SH. LAXMI NARAIN SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Umesh Shandilya, Adv.
VERSUS
CORAM:
2013:DHC:7152 Ofo
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
01.03.2013 The three writ petitions seek to raise a common issue arising from a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as the said Act) dated 13.11.1959. The declaration under Section 6 ofthe said Act was issued on 20.06.1966 and notices under
Sections 9/10 are stated to have been issued in 1973. The Award was made and published by the LAC on 23.03.1977 and the land was transferred to the
Government on 11.05.1977 where-after the petitioners also received an additional compensation in October 1977 and some amount in 1990 (the dates are referred qua W.P.(C). 1974/2013).
The plea now sought to be raised is that the original owners and the legal heirs of the original owners who were not very literate have found out that the land of the petitioners does not form a part of the description of the land sought to be acquired for the public purpose by the Land Development
Authority. It is their say that their constitutional right under Section 300A has been violated as also their human right qua the property.
In our view, the petitioners now seek to unsettle a situation which stands settled as far back in 1977, 36 years ago. The petitioners never made a grievance that the notices were improperly issued to them under the said
Act and that their land did not fonn a part of the proposal. Not only that, they participated in the proceedings, Award was published, they took monies under the Award and the enhanced amount and now seek to rake up this issue after 36 years.
We may add that the further grievance sought to be raised by the petitioners is that the land has really been used for private profit rather than for any land development. The controversy is not liable now to be examined after such a long period of time i.e. 36 years from the payment of compensation and 54 years from the issuance of the notification under
Section 4 of the said Act since a doubt is sought to be created on that notification.
Writ petitions accordingly stand dismissed.
MARCH 01, 2013 rb SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J INDERMEET KAUR, J
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
01.03.2013 The three writ petitions seek to raise a common issue arising from a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as the said Act) dated 13.11.1959. The declaration under Section 6 ofthe said Act was issued on 20.06.1966 and notices under
Sections 9/10 are stated to have been issued in 1973. The Award was made and published by the LAC on 23.03.1977 and the land was transferred to the
Government on 11.05.1977 where-after the petitioners also received an additional compensation in October 1977 and some amount in 1990 (the dates are referred qua W.P.(C). 1974/2013).
The plea now sought to be raised is that the original owners and the legal heirs of the original owners who were not very literate have found out that the land of the petitioners does not form a part of the description of the land sought to be acquired for the public purpose by the Land Development
Authority. It is their say that their constitutional right under Section 300A has been violated as also their human right qua the property.
In our view, the petitioners now seek to unsettle a situation which stands settled as far back in 1977, 36 years ago. The petitioners never made a grievance that the notices were improperly issued to them under the said
Act and that their land did not fonn a part of the proposal. Not only that, they participated in the proceedings, Award was published, they took monies under the Award and the enhanced amount and now seek to rake up this issue after 36 years.
We may add that the further grievance sought to be raised by the petitioners is that the land has really been used for private profit rather than for any land development. The controversy is not liable now to be examined after such a long period of time i.e. 36 years from the payment of compensation and 54 years from the issuance of the notification under
Section 4 of the said Act since a doubt is sought to be created on that notification.
Writ petitions accordingly stand dismissed.
MARCH 01, 2013 rb SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J INDERMEET KAUR, J
JUDGMENT