Full Text
RAJINDER SINGH MALIK S/O LATE SH. PARAS RAM R/O VILLAGE AND P.O. MASOOD PUR
NEW DELHI .....PETITIONER
Through: Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma and Mr. Rohit Taneja, Advocates
JUDGMENT
1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI …RESPONDENT NO.1
2. GOVT.
OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT, B-BLOCK, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI …RESPONDENT NO.2
3. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN) INA MARKET, VIKAS BHAWAN NEW DELHI …RESPONDENT NO.3 Through: Mr. Kamal Kant Jha CGSC with Mr. Aishwarya Deep Singh, Advocate for respondent no.1/UOI Mr. Siddharth Panda, Mr. Ritank Kumar, Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for respondent no.2. Ms. Deeksha L. Kakar, Mr. Rashneet Singh and Ms. Sana Parveen, Advocates for respondent no.3 CORAM: HON’BLE MR.
JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE HON’BLE MR.
JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT
NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J.
1. In the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction seeking a declaration that the entire acquisition proceedings pursuant to Award no.90/(80-81), in respect of land admeasuring 10 Bigha and 07 Biswa arising out of Khasra no.69, Village Masoodpur, New Delhi, owned by the petitioner, stood lapsed. The petitioner has also prayed for the issuance of directions for corrections in the revenue records, thereby mutating the name of the petitioner as the owner of the aforesaid land.
2. The facts which are necessary for deciding the petition are as under:a) Land admeasuring 10 Bighas and 07 Biswas arising out of Khasra no.69 of Village Masoodpur, New Delhi, was required for a public purpose and, accordingly, after Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1894’ for the sake of brevity), were issued on 23rd January, 1965 and 26th December, 1968, respectively. The Award came to be passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 22nd December, 1980, in exercise of powers under Section 12 of the Act of 1894. b) Alleging that post acquisition, neither compensation was paid, nor possession was taken, the petitioner, as per the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 2013’ for the sake of brevity), has sought the aforesaid prayers pursuant to the statutory fiction provided under Section 24 of the Act of 2013.
3. This Court, having regard to the claim made in the petition, caused notice in the matter, which led to respondent no.3- Delhi Development Authority, filing its counter-affidavit, thereby placing on record the possession proceedings. Similarly, respondent no.2- Union of India, has also filed their short affidavit in the matter.
4. Respondent no.3 has claimed that possession of the land in question was handed over to it by the Land Acquisition Collector/L&B Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 29th December, 1980, and the possession proceedings to that effect are already placed on record. It is claimed that against the Award No.90/(80-81) in relation to the land in question, compensation was already sent to the L&B Department, Govt of NCT of Delhi vide cheques dated 19th December, 1980, and 9th January, 1981, and in this background, it is claimed that since possession has already been taken and compensation has been paid, the petitioner has no locus standi to claim relief as the conditions provided under Section 24 of the Act of 2013 are not satisfied.
5. Similarly, respondent no.1 through its affidavit, has prayed for the dismissal of the petition.
6. The petitioner has placed on record written submissions wherein, while placing reliance on the judgment in the matter of Shri Balwan Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors [2015:DHC:4686-DB], it is submitted that since the amount was attached in execution, the compensation was not paid as on 1st January, 2014, and that being so, there is a failure to deposit the compensation which attracts the consequences of Section 24 of the Act of 2013. The petitioner has sought to rely on the photographs placed on record so as to establish his possession over the land in question.
7. Apart from above, the petitioner has also filed Reference proceedings under Section 18 of the Act of 1894, wherein it is claimed that the learned Additional District Judge has passed the judgment and, pursuant to the observations made thereunder, possession can be inferred to be that of the petitioner, and also that there is a failure to pay compensation.
8. Drawing support from the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki & Ors [2014 3 SCC 183], it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to a declaration of the land being released from the clutches of acquisition and, accordingly, for the correction of the revenue records.
9. As against above, the learned counsel for respondent no.2-Govt. of NCT of Delhi, in the written submissions, has provided following sequence of events, which are as under:- LIST OF DATES & EVENTS:- 23.01.1965 Issuance of Section 4 notification under Land Acquisition Act,
1894. 26.12.1968 Declaration under Section 6 issued. 22.12.1980 Award bearing no. 90/80-81 was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector. 29.12.1980 Possession was taken and handed over to the beneficiary department. 07.01.1981 Writ Petition bearing WPC NO. 37/1981 was filed challenging the acquisition proceeding and status quo was granted by this Hon’ble Court. 27.05.1982 Reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was forwarded for adjudication. 14.12.1995 WPC No. 37/1981 filed by the Petitioner was dismissed. 29.11.2006 Reference U/s 18 was decided and compensation was enhanced by the Ld. ADJ. 2015 Present writ petition was filed by the Petitioner.
10. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 would urge that from the document, viz., the Possession Receipt, it is apparent that possession was handed over by respondent no.2 to respondent no.3 on 29th December,
1980. It is further urged that the learned Additional District Judge enhanced the compensation in exercise of powers under Section 18 of the Act of 1894, which pre-supposes that the fact of payment of compensation was within the knowledge of the petitioner, and he has right to execute the same through the Civil Court.
11. It is urged that the reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgment of Pune Municipal Corporation Vs. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki (supra) is wholly misplaced in view of the subsequent law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal & Ors reported in (2020) SCC OnLine SC
316.
12. Learned counsel for respondent no.2, accordingly, urged that the petitioner has based his petition on conjectures and surmises. It is the case of respondent no.2 that possession of the land in question was with the user department and, that being so, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
13. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties.
14. The very same Award is sought to be relied on by the petitioner so as to substantiate that neither compensation is paid, nor possession is taken.
15. The document, viz. the possession proceedings which are placed by respondent no.3 on record is reproduced hereinbelow:-
16. The aforesaid possession proceedings, in categorical terms, speaks of the petitioner having lost possession of the land in question way back in the year 1980.
17. The petitioner thereafter, perhaps, had preferred a writ petition bearing W.P(C) No.37/1981 questioning the aforesaid acquisition, which was dismissed on 14th December, 1995. This fact has not been pleaded by the petitioner in the present petition and, as such, there is a suppression of material facts.
18. Apart from above, the petitioner has approached the competent Court of learned Additional District Judge seeking enhanced compensation under Section 18 of the Act of 1894, and the learned Additional District Judge has granted relief in favour of the petitioner, thereby enhancing the compensation on 29th November, 2006. In such an eventuality, the option available to the petitioner was to execute the decree in question.
19. In this background, the contentions raised by the petitioner that neither compensation has been paid to him, nor possession has been taken over are falsified from the above referred possession proceedings, so also the judgment of Reference Court delivered in the proceedings for grant of enhanced compensation.
20. Apart from above, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal & Ors (supra) has considered the decision sought to be relied on by the petitioner, in the matter of Pune Municipal Corporation Vs. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki (supra), and made the following observations:- “Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) is hereby overruled and all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) has been followed are also overruled. The decision in Shree Balaji Nagar Residential Association (supra) cannot be said to be laying down good law and is accordingly overruled, and all other decisions following the same are also overruled. In Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (Dead) through LRs & Ors. (supra), the aspect with respect to the proviso to Section 24(2) and whether the word ‘or’ has to be read as ‘nor’ or as ‘and’ was not placed for consideration. Therefore, that decision too cannot prevail in light of the discussion in the present judgment.”
21. As such, for satisfying the very requirement under Section 24 of the Act of 2013, it is necessary for the petitioner to demonstrate that he was neither paid compensation, nor possession was taken from him. Rather, the documents produced on record speaks of the petitioner having lost possession to respondent no.3 through respondent no.2 and his proceedings for the grant of enhanced compensation have already been allowed. As such, there is no reason to infer that possession is still with the petitioner. In such an eventuality, the very proceedings for release of land from the clutches of acquisition cannot be said to be maintainable or liable to be allowed.
22. Apart from above, there is failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose the fact that on an earlier occasion, he had filed a writ petition, thereby, seeking the release of the land from acquisition. The said suppression goes to the root of the matter.
23. The present writ petition preferred by the petitioner, in our opinion, suffers from delay and laches and, even otherwise, on the said count, same is not maintainable.
24. The record depicts that the acquisition proceedings in the matter commenced way back i.e. in the year 1965 when the Section 4 Notification was issued, and the Award was passed on 22nd December,
1980. The petitioner, in such an eventuality, cannot seek a declaration at this stage, particularly after having lost possession and given that the petition suffers from delay and laches. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Mahavir & Ors Vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in 2018 3 SCC 588. The relevant observations of the said judgment are reproduced as under:-
21. The court is duty bound to prevent the abuse of the process of law in the cases which have been concluded several decades before, in our considered opinion, the provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act cannot be invoked in such cases of dead claims or stale claims. There are several numbers of cases coming to this Court in which matters had been contested up to this court questioning the acquisition and the petitions have been dismissed by this Court, and acquisition has attained finality, possession was taken, the award passed. Notice had been issued under Section 12(2) of the Act tendering the awarded amount but it has not been collected by the claimants/landowners deliberately or they had refused to collect it and are not ready and willing to accept it and, thereafter, it has been deposited in the name and account of the owners in the treasury which is also deposited as per the State Government’s instructions issued time to time relating to how Government money is to be dealt with. The act of failure to deposit money under section 31 after possession is taken only imposes liability to pay higher interest under Section 34. The acquisition would not lapse under the Act.
22. In our opinion, the cases in which there is deliberate action of the owners for not collecting the compensation and they do not want to receive it, Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not come to their rescue as provisions are to help those persons who are deprived of compensation but not for those who deliberately had not received it and litigated for decades for quashing of proceedings avoiding to receive compensation by willful act. The failure to deposit in court under section 31(1) in such cases would attract only interest as envisaged under Section 34 of the Act and the provisions of Section 24 cannot be so invoked in such cases.
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.
26. The provision of Section 24 does not invalidate courts judgments/orders in which right have been finally lost or due to inaction is barred. Law does not permit examination of barred or totally fraudulent claims. The provisions of the law cannot be permitted to be defrauded or misused. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act cannot be invoked in such cases. The High Court has rightly declined to entertain the writ petitions filed by the petitioners. It is not conceivable how the petitioners could file such a petition in a laconic manner relating to the prime locality at New Delhi that too for hundreds of acres with the delay of more than 100 years. …….
28. We have seen in a large number of cases that the acquisition had attained finality, compensation had been tendered but not received and development had also taken place. The petitions are being filed in the courts under the provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act that they have not been paid any compensation. In fact, if there is any such grievance, they themselves are responsible for not collecting the compensation that was offered and tendered to them. The provision of section 24 is not intended to apply and extend help in such cases.
25. In the aforesaid background, the present petition preferred by the petitioner on the strength of an overruled judgment, that too with suppression of material facts, does not warrant any interference.
26. As such, the petition fails and stands dismissed accordingly.
27. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
28. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.
NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE (JUDGE)
ANISH DAYAL (JUDGE) MAY 29, 2026/ay/st