Anant Ram & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

4. In the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the LAC, the contents of the aforementioned affidavit of the DDA have been affirmed. It is stated that pursuant to the impugned Award, actual vacant physical, possession of the subject land falling in Khasra No.480(5-11) was duly taken and handed over to the DDA on the spot by preparing possession proceedings. The compensation was senttothe Reference courtsincethe claim was disputed.

5. No rejoinder has been filed to either ofthe counter affidavits filed by the Respondents.In any event,the assertion by the Petitioners as regards the status ofcompensation paid for the land in question gives rise to a disputed question offact which cannot be examined in this petition. The fact further remains that the Petitioners have no explanation to offer for the inordinate delay in approaching the Court for the relief.

6. On the aspect oflaches, in Mahavir v. Union ofIndia(2018)3 see588the Supreme Courthas observed as under: "23. In the instant case, the claim has been made not onlybelatedly, but neither the petitioners nor their previous threegenerations had ever approached any ofthe authorities inwriting for claiming compensation. No representation hadever been filed with any authority,none has been annexed andthere is no averment made in the petition that any suchrepresentation had ever been filed. W.P(C)5468of2016 Page3of[6] \ The claim appears not onlystale and dead but extremely clouded. This we are mentioningas additional reasons, as such claims not only suffer JBromdelay and laches but courts are not supposed to entertain suchclaims. Besides such claims become doubtful, cannot bereceived for consideration being barred due to delay andlaches.

24. The High Court has rightly observed that such claimscannot be permitted to be raised in the court, and cannot beadjudicated as they are barred. The High Court has rightlyobserved that such claims cannot be a subject matter ofmquiry after the lapse ofa reasonable period of time andbeneficial provisions of Section 24 of the 2013 Act are notavailable to such incumbents. In our opinion. Section 24cannot revive those claims that are dead and stale.".

7. 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 revivethe dead or stale claims and the matters, which have beencontested up to this Court or even in the High Court having lost thecases or where reference has been sought for enhancement of thecompensation. Compensation obtained and Still it is urged thatphysical possession has not been taken JBrom them, such claimscannot be entertained under the guise of section 24(2). We havecome across the cases in which findings have been recorded that bywhich ofdrawing aPanchnama, possession has been taken,nowagain under Section 24(2) it is asserted again that physicalpossession is still with them. Such claims cannot be entertained inview of the previous decisions in which such plea ought to havebeen raised and such decisions would operate as res judicata orconstructive res judicata. As either the plea raised is negatived orsuch plea ought to have been raised or was notraised in theprevious round oflitigation. Section 24 of W.P(C)5468of2016 Page4of[6] the Act of 2013 does notsupersede or annul the court's decision and the provisions cannot e misused to reassert such claims once over again. OncePanchnama has been drawn and by way of drawing the Panchnamaphysical possession has been taken, the case cannot be reopenedunder the guise ofsection 24 ofActof2013.

129. Section 24 is not intended to come to the aid ofthose who firstdeliberately refuse to accept the compensation, and then indulge inill-advised litigation, and often illmotivated dilatory tactics, fordecades together. On the contrary, the section is intended to helpthose who have not been offered or paid the compensation despite itbeing the legal obligation ofthe acquiring body so to do,and/or whohave been illegally deprived of their possession for five years ormore; in both the scenarios, fault/cause not being attributable tothe landowners/claimants.

130. We are ofthe view that stale or dead claims cannot be thesubject-matter ofjudicial probing under section 24 of the Act of2013. The provisions of section.24 do not invalidate thosejudgment/orders ofthe courts where under rights/claims have beenlost/negatived, neither do they revive those rights which have becomebarred, either due to inaction or otherwise by operation of law.Fraudulent and stale claims are not at all to be raised under theguise of section 24. Misuse of provisions of section 24(2) cannot bepermitted. Protection by the courts in cases of such blatant misuseof the provisions of law could never have been the intention behindenacting the provisions of section 24(2)of the 2013 Act; and, by thedecision laid down in Pune Municipal. Corporation {supra), and thisCourt never, even for a moment, intended that such cases would bereceived or entertained bythe courts."

8. It may be noted here that the reference made by a Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Shyam Verma(2018)4 see405regarding the correctness ofthe aforesaid decision inIndore DevelopmentAuthority v. Shailendra {supra)is only as regards the W.P(C)5468of2016 Page5of[6] \ extent to which it differs from the earlier view ofthe Suprenie Court in Pune Municipal Corporation v. HarakchandMisrimal Solanki regarding thetendering ofcompensation,and on certain,other issues but not on the question ofpetitions seeking declaration under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act being barred by laches. This legal position was explained by this Court recently in Moot Chand v. Union ofIndia2019(173)DRJ595DB.

9. For the aforementioned reasons,the writ petition is dismissed both onthe ground oflaches as well as on rherits,butinthe circumstances, with no orders as to costs.

S.MURALIDHAR,J. LS.MEHTA,J. MAY 17,2019/tr \A