Jeet Singh v. Union of India

Delhi High Court · 24 Oct 2017 · 2017:DHC:6258-DB

G. S. Sistani; V. Kameswar Rao

W.P. (C) No.11538/2015

2017:DHC:6258-DB

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a 1911 land acquisition award, holding that claims after such a long lapse of time are barred by law and precedent.

Full Text

W.P. (C) No.11538/2015 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of

JUDGMENT

: 24th October, 2017 W.P. (C.) No.11538/2015
JEET SINGH & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through None.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Mr. Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, Mr. Vipul Agrawal, Mr. Anshuman Nayak, Advs. for UOI.
Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Adv. for LAC/L&B.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)

1. None is present on behalf of the petitioners despite the matter being passed over once and called a second time.

2. Petitioners have filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, mandamus or any other direction to quash the impugned award No.30/1911-1912 of village Malcha, New Delhi and notification No.775 dated 21.12.1911 issued under Sections 6 and 7 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 2017:DHC:6258-DB

3. Counsel for respondent no.4/LAC submits that a reading of the present writ petition would show that the petitioners have sought a direction in respect of the land acquired in the year 1911 under Award No.30/1911-1912 of village Malcha, New Delhi, which has lapsed by the operation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Learned counsel further submits that the present case is fully covered by the decisions rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mahavir and others Vs. Union of India, W.P.

Union of India, W.P. (C) No.9233 of 2014 dated 02.05.2017 and Mukesh and others Vs. Union of India, W.P. (C) No.7532 of 2015 dated 02.05.2017.

4. Learned counsel has placed reliance on paragraphs-4 and 5 in the case of Mahavir (supra). It reads as under:-

“4. The question is perhaps a unique one – i.e. the parties claim to be aggrieved to approach this Court, waking up like Rip Van Winkle in Indian parlance or what may be called „Kumbkarna‟ lapse of time. In other words, is it open to the petitioner or a set of petitioners to resuscitate grievance several generations later to claim the protection of a later law? Such claims were never under contemplation when the acquisition was resorted to. 5. It is not disputed that the lands over which the petitioner lays claim were a part of Raisina village which was acquired and on which much of lutyens Delhi has been build. In these circumstances as to whether indeed the petitioners‟ ancestors were paid

compensation or not can be made a subject of enquiry over 104 years later having regard to a later enactment and right which flow directly from it. In the opinion of the Court the award clearly has to be negative. The petitioners are asking this Court to infer and conclude that in the absence of some indication from the records made available by them, that their ancestors did not ever receive any compensation. No contemporary record in the form of letters, protest by them or any other communication stating that compensation was not disbursed or reference to civil proceedings for release of the amounts or seeking decree have been relied upon by the petitioners. In these circumstances if the petitioners are to be allowed to raise such grievances the courts would be open to claims from each succeeding generation, which may say that the previous generation had not received their just dues. Such claims cannot be adjudicated, as they are barred.”

5. Since none is present to press this petition and in view of the fact that the same is covered by the decision rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Mahavir (supra), the writ petition is dismissed. G.S.SISTANI, J. V.KAMESWAR RAO, J. OCTOBER 24, 2017 ck

Jeet Singh v. Union of India

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation