Gunjan Mehta v. Union of India and Ors.

1. These are two petitions arising out a similar set of facts and therefore being disposed of by a common order. Nevertheless, they were heard 2019:DHC:7920-DB

2. It must be noted at the outset that the Petitioner in both W.P.(C) 9006/2019 and W.P.(C) 9009/2019 filed a writ petition, being W.P.(C) 13544/2018 and W.P.(C) 13545/2018, respectively. In both the earlier writ petitions, the Court passed an order on 10'^ January, 2019 dismissing the petitions as withdrawn, while granting liberty to the Petitioners to file a fresh petition, explaining the inordinate delay in approaching the Court for relief. Pursuant to the said order of this Court, the present petitions have been filed.

3. For the sake ofconvenience,the facts in W.P.(C)9006/2019 will be set out first. The prayers in the said petition read as under: "(a)issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land measuring 01 Bigha 05 Biswas out ofOld Khasra No.325,326,329, 330,332(New Khasra No.4/21,22,24,25,26,13/1,10,11)situated in the Village Budhpur Bijapur,Delhi belonging to the petitioner; (b)issue appropriate write,order or direction declaring the acquisition proceedings in respect ofthe land measuring 01 Bigha 05 Biswas out ofOld Khasra No.325,326,329,330,332(New Khasra No.4/21,22, 41 24, 25, 26, 13/1, 10, 11) situated in the Village Budhpur Bijapur, ^ Delhi having lapsed and have become inoperative after the coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act,2013"

4. The background facts are thatthe land in question i.e. 1 Bigha 5 Biswas in Khasra Nos.4/21,22,24,25,26,13/1,10,11, all situated in Village Budhpur Bijapur,Delhi(hereafter,'subject land')was notified under Section 4 ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('LAA') on 27^^ June, 1985 for the public followed by a declaration under Section 6 ofthe LAA dated 21®^ December,

1994. The Land Acquisition Collector passed an award being Award NO. 12/96-97 dated 17^^ December,1996.

5. As far as the Petitioner Gunjan Mehta is concerned, it is stated that she purchased the subject land from the recorded owners Satender Kumar and Ashok Mehta by way ofa sale deed dated 17^*^ June, 1985. A copy ofthe Khatauni for the year 1984-85, as also the aforesaid sale deed has been annexed with the petition. It is averred in the petition that the possession of the subject land has remained with the Petitioner and compensation has also not been paid to her.

6. The Petitioner states that when she purchased the subject land, she was not aware that she was required to get the revenue record mutated to reflect her name. It is stated that a notice under LAA Section 12 was not issued to the Petitioner. It is contended that as a "person interested" under LAA Section 3(B),she ought to have received such a notice. Accordingly, it is submitted that the Petitioner was not aware that the impugned Award had been passed in respectofthe subjectland.

7. It is claimed by Gunjan Mehta that it was only in 2017 that she came to know about the existence ofthe impugned Award and that upon becoming aware,she filed an application with the LAC for compensation.It is stated that no action was taken on the said application. In this context, it is m e Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('2013 Act'). It is contended that as neither possession has been taken nor compensation paid,the Petitioner is entitled to reliefunder the aforesaid provision ofthe 2013 Act.

8. In the companion writ petition, the background facts and the averments are almost identical, with the subject land being comprised in a different Khasra No.,albeit in the same area i.e. Village Budhpur Bijapur. Ownership over the subject land has been claimed to have been by way ofa sale deed dated 29^^ May, 1986 executed by Satender Kumar and Ashok Mehta in favour ofthe Petitioner Ashok & Co.The Petitioner has sought to make out an identical case for the extraordinary delay in approaching the Court by averring that he was not aware that a mutation had to be carried out in the revenue record and that,therefore,no LAA Section 12 notice was issued to it. th

9. The fact remains that despite being granted, by the order dated 10 January 2019 of this Court dismissing the earlier petitions, another opportunity to explain the inordinate delay in approaching the Court for relief, the reasons that have been provided in the present petitions are far from satisfactory or convincing. The contention that the Petitioners were unaware that the revenue records needed to be mutated and that,therefore,a notice under Section 12 LAA was not issued to them, does not appeal to logic particularly since the sale deeds were purportedly executed in 1985 J) e constitute a sufficient explanation for the nearly 20-year delay in challenging the acquisition proceedings.

10. On the aspect oflaches,inIndore DevelopmentAuthority v. Shailendra (2018) 3 see 412 a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India observed as under: "130. We are ofthe view that stale or dead claims cannot be the subject-matter ofjudicial probing under section 24 ofthe Actof

2013. The provisions of section 24 do not invalidate those judgment/orders of the courts where under rights/claims have been lost/negatived, neither do they revive those rights which have come barred, either due to inaction or otherwise by operation oflaw.Fraudulent and stale claims are not at all to be raised under the guise of section 24. Misuse of provisions of section 24(2) cannot be permitted. Protection by the courts in cases of such blatant misuse of the provisions of law could never have been the intention behind enacting the provisions of section 24(2)ofthe 2013 Act; and, by the decision laid down in Pune Municipal Corporation {supra), and this Court never, even for a moment,intended that such cases would be received or entertained by the courts." ^ 11.Itmaybe noted herethatthereference made byaConstitutionBench in ^ Indore Development Authority v. Shyam Verma (2018) 4 SCC 405 regarding the correctness ofthe aforesaid decision in Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra {supra) is only as regards the extent to which it differs from the earlier view of the Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand MisrimalSolanki(2014)3SCC183regarding the tendering ofcompensation,and not on the question ofpetitions seeking r This legal position was explained by this Court recently in its decision in MootChand v. Union ofIndia(2019)173DRJ595(DB).

12. For the aforementioned reasons,the writ petitions are dismissed on the ground oflaches.The applications are disposed of.

AUGUST 20,2019 abc S.MURALIDHAR,J. TALWANT SINGH,.