Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: May 11,2023
MANISH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ratan Prakash and Mr. Mohd.
Hashim Miyan, Advocates.
Through: Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate for DDA.
Mr.Yeeshu Jain, SC for LAC with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for LAC.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA V. KAMESWAR RAO (Oral)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
JUDGMENT
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:- “a) Pass a writ of mandamus and/or any other suitable writ, order and/or direction thereby, declaring the entire acquisition proceedings in respect of and in relation to the petitioner's land measuring 1 Bighas 2 Biswas, comprised in Khasra NO. 42/19/1(01-02) situated in the revenue estate of village Poothkalan, District North West, Delhi, to the extent of his respective joint share to have lapsed and further issue order or direction thereby quashing the impugned award no. 20/1985-86 of village Poothkalan, district north west, Delhi, in respect of and in relation to the petitioner's land measuring 1 Bighas 02 Biswas, comprised in Khasra no. 42/19/1(01-02) situated in the revenue estate of village Poothkalan, district North West, Delhi, to the extent of his respective joint share in the aforesaid land. b) Further writ of mandamus and/or any other suitable writ (s), order(s) or direction(s) directing the respondents not to interfere with and/or obstruct the petitioner in the peaceful enjoyment over the land measuring 1 bighas 02 biswas, comprised in khasra NO. 42/19/1(01-02) situated in the revenue estate of village pooth kalan, district north west, Delhi, to the extent of his respective joint share in the aforesaid land.”
2. This is a second round of litigation by the petitioner, the first being W.P. (C) No. 1611/2018 titled Sunita & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on July 16, 2019 wherein the following order has been passed:-
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner herein Manish was also a petitioner in the said petition.
4. At the outset, Ms. Tyagi and Mr. Birbal appearing for the respondents would submit that there is a conclusive finding against the petitioner herein in the earlier litigation that the challenge to the acquisition proceedings was after an inordinate delay. According to them, the petitioner has not explained the delay as was his case while withdrawing the earlier petition. Additionally, Mr. Birbal states that the petitioner is only having 1/56th share in the land in question.
5. Noting the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the delay has not been explained, on a query to the learned counsel for the petitioner in that regard, he has drawn our attention to para 6 of the petition, which reads as under:-
6. We are of the considered view that para 6 does not explain the inordinate delay in filing the petition, as it is the conceded position that the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on December 11, 1981, the notification under Section 6 was issued on April 11, 1984 and the Award was passed on November 11, 1985.
7. We find no reason to entertain the present petition in the absence of any explanation to the inordinate delay. The petition is dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands dismissed.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J MAY 11, 2023