Delhi Development Authority v. Nisha Khurana; Delhi Development Authority v. Rajkumar Khurana

Delhi High Court · 26 Apr 2024
Manmohan, ACJ; Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J
LPA 334/2024 & LPA 335/2024
property appeal_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed DDA's appeals challenging orders under the Delhi Land Reforms Act on the ground of inordinate delay and laches, refusing to condone delay despite Covid-19 pandemic claims.

Full Text
Translation output
LPA 334/2024 & LPA 335/2024
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
LPA 334/2024 & C.M.Nos.24202-24204/2024
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Appellant
Through: Ms.Manika Tripathy, standing counsel for DDA
WITH
Mr.Ashutosh
Kaushik, Mr.Rony John and Mr.Aishwary Jaiswal, Advocates.
VERSUS
NISHA KHURANA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: None
LPA 335/2024 & C.M.Nos.24206-24209/2024
DELHI DEVLOPMENT AUTHOURITY ..... Appellant
Through: Ms.Manika Tripathy, standing counsel for DDA
WITH
Mr.Ashutosh
Kaushik, Mr.Rony John and Mr.Aishwary Jaiswal, Advocates.
VERSUS
RAJKUMAR KHURANA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: None
Date of Decision: 26th April, 2024
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, ACJ: (ORAL)

1. Present appeals have been filed challenging the judgments dated 28th August, 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) 10072/2016 and W.P.(C) 10070/2016, whereby the writ petitions filed by LPA 334/2024 & LPA 335/2024 the respondents were allowed and the orders dated 17th July, 2012 passed by the Court of Revenue Assistant (Najafgarh) under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (“DLR Act”) and subsequent orders upholding the orders dated 17th July, 2012 were set aside on the ground of limitation and that pursuant to the passing of the Zonal plan by DDA, the land in question ceased to be an “agricultural land” under Section 3(13) of the DLR Act.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant/DDA states that violation of the DLR Act took place prior to the land being notified as urban area and the notification of the zonal development plan. She contends that the orders dated 17th July, 2012 continue to be legal and valid.

3. A perusal of the paper books reveal that there is more than sixteen hundred (1600) days delay each in filing the appeals.

4. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant/DDA states that quite a substantial period of this delay is covered by Covid-19 pandemic. However this Court finds that the impugned judgments had been rendered nearly five months prior to the onset of Covid-19 pandemic. Further even if Covid-19 pandemic limitation period is excluded, the clock would again start running from 1st March, 2022.

5. Consequently, the present appeals are dismissed along with the applications on the ground of delay and laches. However, the issue of law is left open.

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J APRIL 26, 2024