M/s Orchid Realtors v. Union of India & Ors.

2. For the sake of convenience W.P.(C) 211 of 2017 titled M/s. Orchid Realtors v. Union ofIndia & Ors. is taken up as the lead case. The prayers in the petition read as under: "(i) issue a writ of certiorari and/or any other writ, order or direction of the similar nature declaring the entire acquisition with respect to 14 Bighas and 17 Biswas of agricultural land comprised in Khasra No.617 (4-11) &619 (10-6), situated in revenue Estate of Village Maidan Garhi, NCT Delhi having lapsed and further quashing the impugned notification No.F.9(16)/80-L&B dated 25.11.1980 issued under section 4,Notification No.F.9(28)/85-L&B dated 18.06.1985 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Award no.23/87-88 with respect to 14 Bighas and 17 Biswas of agricultural land comprised in Khasra No.617(4-11) &619(10- 6), situated in revenue Estate of Village Maidan Garhi, NCT Delhi. AND

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other writ, order and direction of the similar nature issuing directions to the Respondents not to disturb or hinder the possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner over 14 Bighas and 17 Biswas of agricultural land comprised in Khasra No.617(4-11) &619(10- 6), situated in revenue Estate of Village Maidan Garhi, NCT W.P.(C)211/2017& Ors. Page2of[6] Delhi."

3. It is stated in the petition thatthe Petitioner is the owner in actual physical possession of 14 Bighas and 17 Biswas of agricultural land comprised in Khasra No.617(4-11)& 619(10-6)situated in the revenue estate ofVillage Maidan Garhi, NCT of Delhi. It is stated in the petition that the Petitioner purchased the land from Shri Hoshiar Singh and Shri Mukhtiar Singh through an Agreementto Sell(ATS)and General Power ofAttorney(GPA) both dated 28^^ June 2005. It is stated that the Petitioner has been in continuous possession and no compensation has been paid to the Petitioner or its predecessor-in-interest.It is stated that no hearing imder Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Actl894('LAA')was conducted by the authorities.

4. The narration in the petition reveals that notification under Section 4 of LAA was issued on 25^*^ November 1980, followed by declaration under Section[6] ofthe LAA on 18^''June 1985.The impugned Award No.23/87-88 was passed on 17 June 1987.There is no explanation in the petition for the inordinate delay in approaching the Courtfor relief.

5. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the LAC,it is submitted that acquisition proceedings were challenged by the interested persons by filing various writPetitioners.Interim protection was granted in W.P.(C)424/1987 titled Chatro Devi v. UOI & Ors. where the stay was continued till the dismissal ofthe petition whereby the acquisition proceedings were upheld.It is stated that in the present case, the recorded owners have not challenged the acquisition proceedings. It is asserted that the possession ofthe subject land was taken and handed over to the DDA on 16*^ July 1987. It is also W.P.(C)211/2017& Ors. Page3of[6] submitted that the Petitioner has not filed any revenue record nor any title documents to support the contention that the Petitioner or its predecessorsin-interest were ever the recorded owners of the land. On the aspect of compensation, it is submitted that Shri Hoshiar Singh and Shri Mukhtyar Singh were paid Rs.2,09,940.75 each vide cheque nos. 82766 and 82767.It is also stated that the Petitioner has purchased lands through ATS and GPA executed after the acquisition proceedings withouttaking prior permission of the competent authority under the Delhi Lands(Restriction ofTransfer)Act, 1972.No Rejoinder has been filed by the Petitioner to the counter affidavit of the LAC.

6. The averments in the connected writ petitions are identical except for the difference in Khasra numbers.The documents relied upon are also similar.

7. A perusal ofthe said documents reveals that they are unregistered and do not confer any valid right,title or interest in respect ofthe lands in question in favour ofthe Petitioner. In this case, the Notification under Section 4 of LAA was passed on 25**^ November 1980 and the Award was passed on 18^'' June 1985. The Petitioner having full knowledge aboutthe status ofthe land in question and without taking permission fi-om the competent authority as required under Delhi Land (Restriction of Transfer) Act, 1972 has entered into the above transactionsin respect ofthe lands in question.The validity of the above documents is therefore, extremely doubtful. In the circumstances, the Courtis not satisfied thatthe Petitioner has been ableto evenprimafacie demonstrate its locus standi to file this petition and claim any relief under Section 24(2)ofthe Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,2013('the 2013 Act'). W.P.(C)211/2017& Ors. Page4of[6]

8. In any event,the assertion by the Petitioner that it continues to remain in possession ofthe land in question gives rise to a disputed question offacts. The fact further remains that the Petitioner has no explanation to offer for the inordinate delay in approaching the Courtforthe relief.

9. On the aspect oflaches,in Indore DevelopmentAuthority v. Shailendra (2018)3see 4123. three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has held as under: "130. We are ofthe view that stale or dead claims cannot be the subject-matter ofjudicial probing under section 24 of the Act of2013. 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 become 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 ofsuch blatant misuse ofthe provisions oflaw could never have been the intention behind enacting the provisions ofsection 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."

10. It may be noted here that the reference made by a Constitution Bench 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 as regards the extent to which it differs from the earlier view ofthe Supreme CourtinPune MunicipalCorporation

V. Harakchand MisrimalSolanki(2014)3SCC183 regarding the tendering of compensation, and on certain other issues but not on the question of petitions seeking declaration under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act being W.P.(C)211/2017& Ors. Page5of[6] J barred by laches. This legal position was explained by this Court recently in MoolChand v. Union ofIndia2019(173)DRJ595[DB].

11. For the aforementioned reasons, all the writ petitions are dismissed both on the ground oflaches as well as on merits, but in the circumstances, with no orders as to costs.

12. The interim order dated ll'^ January 2017 in W.P.(C)211 of 2017 which stood confirmed on 1®^ November 2017 and similar interim orders in the connected writ petitions are hereby vacated. jnULY 24,2019 abc S.MURALIDHAR,J. TALWANT SINGH,J. W.P.(C)211/2017& Ors. ■Page 6 of[6]