Surendar Kaur v. Union of India and Ors.

1. This review petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking review of order dated July 18, 2018 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Court stating as under: W.P.(C) 10607/2015 Page 2 “None is present on behalf of the petitioner. None was present on behalf of the petitioner on the last date ofhearing as well. As per the counter affidavit filed by the LAC, possession stands taken on 21.12.1970 and compensation stands paid. Para 5of the counter affidavit filed by the LAC reads as under: "5. That the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the actual vacant physical possession ofthe subject land was duly taken on 21.12.1970 on the spot by preparing possession proceedings and handed over to the requisition agency on the spot. The compensation of Rs.23736/- was paid to Lai Singh S/o Jaimal Singh and Ujagar Singh S/o Dayal Singh and Labh Singh S/o Lai Singh on 12.10.1970 as perNaksha Muntazamin." At this stage, Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, proxy counsel on behalf of the retained counsel has appeared and submits that he is not aware of the facts of the present case. In view of the stand taken by the LAC in the counter affidavit and in the absence of any submission made on behalf of the petitioner, we find no merit in the present writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.”

2. Suffice to state the review petition was filed in the year 2018 and was dismissed on October 6, 2021. Thereafter the petitioner had filed an application being CM. 4648/2022 for recall of order dated October 6, 2021.

3. On January 27, 2022, this Court had passed the following order: “The present application has been filed by the petitioner to seek recall of the order dated 06.10.2021. W.P.(C) 10607/2015 Page 3 By the said order, the Court had dismissed the Review Petition No. 355/2018, in the light of the fact that the matter appeared to be covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal,[(2020) 8SCC 129]. The review petition itself had been filed to seek review of the order dated 18.07.2018, by which the petition had been dismissed in the absence of the petitioner, since none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. The Court also took notice of the counter-affidavit filed by the Land Acquisition Collector (in short “LAC”) as per which possession was taken on 21.12.1970, and compensation had been paid. Para-5 of the counter-affidavit filed by the LAC was also reproduced in the said order. The petitioner then preferred the aforesaid review petition, way back in September, 2018, which was adjourned from time to time. In the meantime, the decision of the Supreme Court has also been rendered in Indore Development Authority (supra). Despite the fact that from the record, it appears that the possession of the acquired property at Village Jaitpur, had already been taken on 21.12.1970, the petitioner is intent on pursuing the present application, and if the same is allowed, the review petition. In the aforesaid background, before we hear the petitioner on the present application, for which the counsel seeks adjournment, we would like the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs in this Court to secure costs, which may eventually be imposed, in case, we do not find merit in the submissions of the petitioner. Costs be deposited within four weeks. In case, the costs are not deposited, the present application shall stand automatically dismissed, and the matter need not be listed on the next date.”

4. We have been informed that the amount of ₹2 Lacs has been deposited by the petitioner in the Registry of the Court. The CM has been allowed and the review petition was restored to its original number. W.P.(C) 10607/2015 Page 4

5. The plea of the counsel for the review petitioner is that, though the Court has noted paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent LAC about the fact that Lal Singh, Ujagar Singh and Labh Singh have received the compensation of ₹23,736/- on October 12, 1970 as per the Naksha Muntazamin, but the said three persons were not the recorded owners, whereas petitioner is one of the legal heirs of the recorded owner namely Harnam Singh.

6. Suffice to state no rejoinder to the counter-affidavit was filed by the petitioner controverting the stand taken by the LAC. So, it follows, the stand in the counter affidavit has been accepted. His plea is also, that the possession of the land has not been taken by the authorities. We are unable to agree with this submission as we find it is the own case of the petitioner at Page H of the writ petition that the symbolic possession of the land was taken over by the Land Acquisition Collector.

7. The order dated July 18, 2018 does not require any review. We dismiss the review petition imposing cost of ₹2 Lakhs on the petitioner. The amount of ₹2 Lakhs deposited in the Registry in terms of order dated January 27, 2022 of this Court shall be deposited by the Registry with interest (if any) with the “Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee”.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J AUGUST 3, 2023