Vijender Jain,j. (Oral)

( 1 ) IT has been contended before me by Mr. Kalra, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the case is squarely covered by a Full Bench decision of this Court Roshanara Begum Vs. Union of India reported in 1996 (1) AD (Delhi) 7.

( 2 ) ON the other hand, Mr. Bansal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4-Delhi Development Authority (in short dda ), has contended that the writ petition has been filed at a belated stage and the petitioner must suffer for delay and laches and on this preliminary ground the petition be dismissed. Mr. Bansal has further contended that the Notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in the year 1959 i. e. 13. 11. 1959, whereas declaration was issued under Section6 of the Act on 21. 1. 1969 and the award was made in the year 1981-82. According to Mr. Bansal, the possession of the land in question was taken in the year 1986, which is disputed by Mr. Kalra. On the basis of these averments, Mr. Bansal has contended that writ petition was filed in 1987, therefore, there was delay in filing the writ petition and petition be dismissed.

( 3 ) MR. KALRA has argued that the petitioner had purchased this land

Click Here to Read the rest of this document