Kum Kum Gupta v. Union of India & Ors.

1. All these petitions have been filed by the same Petitioner, the facts are more or less are similar and the reliefs sought are identical. They are accordingly being disposed ofby this common order. Nevertheless,each of the petitions was heard separately.

2. For the sake of convenience W.P.(C) 1505 of 2018 titled Kum Kum Gupta V. Union ofIndia & Ors. is taken up as the lead case.The prayers in the petition read as under: "i)To declare that the acquisition proceedings in respect ofthe property admeasuring 2 Bighas 19 Biswas comprised in Khasra No. 422/4 (5 Biswas) and Khasra No. 423 (2 Bhigas and 4Biswas), (earlier agricultural land) now built up portion thereon, situated in Village Neb Sarai, Tehshil - Mehrauli, District-South, New Delhi-110 074, initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have lapsed by virtue ofSection 24(2)of the new Act, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,2013. ii)Issue any other writ, order, or direction that may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances ofthe case in favor ofthe Petitioner and againstthe Respondents."

3. The narration in the petition reveals that the notification under Section 4 ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894('LAA') was issued on 5^^ November W.P.(C)1454/2018andotherconnectedmatters ^of[8] 1980, followed by declaration under Section 6 of the LAA on 21^^ May

1985. The impugned Award No. 12/1987-88 was passed way back on 18"^ May 1987. There is no explanation in the petition for the inordinate delay in approaching the Courtfor relief.

4. It is stated in the petition thatthe Petitioner is the owner the'owner and in possession of the property admeasuring 2 Bigha 19 Biswas comprised in Khasra No.422/4(5 Biswas)and Khasra No.423(2 Bigha and 4 Biswas), (earlier agricultural land) now built up portion thereon, situated in Village Neb Sarai, Tehshil - Mehrauli,District-South." It is stated that the recorded owner ofthe land was Late Shri Inder Singh. After his passing,his two sons Devinder Singh and Narender Singh were the actual owners.It is stated that the Petitioner acquired the land via registered sale deed dated L'January 1998 executed by Shri T.S. Chowdhary who is the attorney ofthe original land owners. It is stated that the Petitioner is still in possession ofthe said land and no compensation has been paid to the Petitioner or to any ofthe predecessors-in-interest.

5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalfofthe LAC,it is submitted that the Petitioner is claiming ownership ofthe land based on a sale deed which is registered in Bombay. It is stated further submitted that as per the Naksha Muntazim,the children ofone Shri Mehar Singh are the recorded owners of land in Khasra no.422/4(0-5), also having halfshare in land in Khasra NO. 423(2-7)and remaining halfshare in Khasra no.423(2-7)belongs to shri Mansingh. It is stated that possession of Khasra No. 422 and 423has not been taken. On the aspect ofcompensation,the LAC has submitted a table fV.P. (C)1454/2018andotherconnected matters Page4of[8] which shows that the compensation was submitted in the RD in 1988 and was subsequently withdrawn for Award No. 1/93-94.

6. No counter affidavit has been filed by the DDA.No rejoinder has been filed by the Petitionerto the counter affidavit ofthe LAC.

7. The averments and pleas in the companion petitions are identical with the only difference being the description of the lands in respect of which the reliefis claimed.The responses thereto ofthe Respondents are identical too.

8. In any event,the assertion ofthe Petitioners that they continue to remain in possession ofthe land in question gives rise to a disputed question offact which cannot be examined in this petition. In these cases,the Notification under Section 4 ofLAA was passed on 5^ November 1980 and the Award was passed on 18^*^ May 1987. The Petitioner having full knowledge about the status of the land in question and without taking permission from the competent authority as required under Delhi Land (Restriction ofTransfer) Act, 1972 has entered into transactions in respect ofthe lands in question. The validity ofthe above documents are, therefore, extremely doubtful. In the circumstances,the Court is not satisfied that the Petitioner has been able to even primafacie demonstrate its locus standi to file this petition and claim any reliefunder Section 24(2)ofthe 2013 Act.

9. On the aspect oflaches,in Mahavir v. Union ofIndia(2018)3SCC588 the Supreme Court has observed as under: "23. In the instant case, the claim has been made not only W.P.(C)1454/2018and other connected matters Page5of[8] belatedly, but neither the petitioners nor their previous three generations had ever approached any ofthe authorities in writing for claiming compensation. No representation had ever been filed with any authority, none has been annexed and there is no averment made in the petition that any such representation had ever been filed. The claim appears not only stale and dead but extremely clouded. This we are mentioning as additional reasons,as such claims not only sufferfrom delay and laches but courts are not supposed to entertain such claims. Besides such claims become doubtful, cannot be received for consideration being barred due to delay and laches.

24. The High Court has rightly observed that such claims cannot be permitted to be raised in the court, and cannot be adjudicated as they are barred. The High Court has rightly observed that such claims cannot be a subject matter ofinquiry after the lapse of a reasonable period oftime and beneficial provisions ofSection 24 of the 2013 Act are not available to such incumbents. In our opinion, Section 24 cannot revive those claims that are dead and stale."

10. The above decision has been reaffirmed by the judgment of the three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra(2018)3SCC412 where it was observed as under: "128. In our considered opinion section 24 cannot be used to revive the dead or stale claims and the matters, which have been contested up to this Court or even in the High Court having lost the cases or where reference has been soughtfor enhancement of the compensation. Compensation obtained and still it is urged that physical possession has not been taken from them, such -claims cannot be entertained under the guise of section 24(2)., We have come across the cases in which findings have been recorded that by which ofdrawing a Panchnama,possession has been taken, now again under Section 24(2) it is asserted again that physical possession is still with them.Such claims cannot be entertained in view ofthe previous decisions in which such plea W.P. (C)1454/2018and other connected matters Page6of[8] ought to have been raised and such decisions would operate as resjudicata or constructive resjudicata. As either the plea raised is negatived or such plea ought to have been raised or was not raised in the previous round of litigation. Section 24 ofthe Act of2013 does not supersede or annul the court's decision and the provisions cannot e misused to reassert such claims once over again. Once Panchnama has been drawn and by way ofdrawing the Panchnama physical possession has been taken, the case cannot be reopened under the guise ofsection 24 ofActof2013.

129. Section 24 is not intended to come to the aid ofthose who first deliberately refuse to accept the compensation, and then indulge in ill-advised litigation, and often ill-motivated dilatory tactics, for decades together. On the contrary, the section is intended to help those who have not been offered or paid the compensation despite it being the legal obligation of the acquiring body so to do,and/or who have been illegally deprived oftheir possession for five years or more;in both the scenarios, fault/cause not being attributable to the landowners/claimants.

130. We are ofthe view that stale or dead claims cannot be the subject-matter ofjudicial probing under section 24 ofthe Act of

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 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."