IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, JJ.
Manish – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 6239 of 2023, CM APPLs. 24562 of 2023 & 24563 of 2023
Decided On : 11-05-2023
Delay - Land Acquisition - Dismissal of Petition
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to declare the acquisition proceedings of their land as lapsed. The respondents argued that there was an inordinate delay in approaching the court for relief.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in filing the petition. As a result, the petition was dismissed.
Issues: Inordinate delay in filing the petition
Ratio Decidendi: The court dismissed the petition due to the lack of a satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in approaching the court for relief.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and any pending application was also dismissed.
JUDGMENT
V. Kameswar Rao (Oral)
CM APPL. 24563/2023 (for exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 6239/2023 & CM APPL. 24562/2023 (stay)
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:
"a) Pass a writ of mandamus and/or any other suitable writ, order and/or direction thereby, declaring the entire acquisition proceedings in respect of and in relation to the petitioner's land measuring 1 Bighas 2 Biswas, comprised in Khasra no. 42/19/1(01-02) situated in the revenue estate of village Poothkalan, District North West, Delhi, to the extent of his respective joint share to have lapsed and further issue order or direction thereby quashing the impugned award no. 20/1985-86 of village Poothkalan, district north west, Delhi, in respect of and in relation to the petitioner's land measuring 1 Bighas 02 Biswas, comprised in Khasra no. 42/19/1(01-02) situated in the revenue estate of village Poothkalan, district North West, Delhi, to the extent of his respective joint share in the aforesaid land.
b) Further writ of mandamus and/or any other suitable writ (s), order(s) or direction(s) directing the respondents not to interfere with and/or obstruct the petitioner in the peaceful enjoyment over the land measuring 1 bighas 02 biswas, comprised in khasra no. 42/19/1(01-02) situated in the revenue estate of village pooth kalan, district north west, Delhi, to the extent of his respective joint share in the aforesaid land."
2. This is a second round of litigation by the petitioner, the first being W.P. (C) No. 1611/2018 titled Sunita & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., decided on July 16, 2019 wherein the following order has been passed:
"1. The present petition seeks a declaration to the effect that land acquisition proceedings in respect of land admeasuring "1/2 joint share in Khasra No. 42/19/I (01-02), situated in the revenue estate of Village Poothkalan, District North West, Delhi" stand lapsed. Notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (`LAA') was issued on 11th December l 981. Thereafter, declaration under Section 6 of the LAA was issued on 11th April 1984. The final impugned Award No.20/1985-86 was passed by the Respondent on 11th November 1985.
2. No explanation is given for the inordinate delay by the Petitioner approaching this Court for relief with respect to an Award that was passed way back in 1985.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks leave to withdraw this petition with liberty to file a proper petition explaining the inordinate delay in approaching the Court for relief.
4. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. The interim order passed on 20th February 2018 and confirmed on th May 2018 is hereby vacated. The points urged in the counter affidavit of the DDA are permitted to be raised at the appropriate stage."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner herein Manish was also a petitioner in the said petition.
4. At the outset, Ms. Tyagi and Mr. Birbal appearing for the respondents would submit that there is a conclusive finding against the petitioner herein in the earlier litigation that the challenge to the acquisition proceedings was after an inordinate delay. According to them, the petitioner has not explained the delay as was his case while withdrawing the earlier petition. Additionally, Mr. Birbal states that the petitioner is only having 1/56th share in the land in question.
5. Noting the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the delay has not been explained, on a query to the learned counsel for the petitioner in that regard, he has drawn our attention to para 6 of the petition, which reads as under:
"6. That the petitioner has rigorously followed up with the respondents from pillar to post but all efforts went in vain as the respondents did not even bothered to consider the legal demand of the petitioner that the acquisition proceedings have already been lapsed i
AI
Dismissal of petition due to inordinate delay in approaching the court for relief
The delay in challenging acquisition proceedings and the impact on third-party rights can weigh against quashing the proceedings, even if the award has been passed beyond the stipulated period.
Timely challenges are essential in land acquisition disputes; relief cannot be granted due to inordinate delay as established by the court's reaffirmation of the principle of laches.
Delay and latches can be grounds for dismissal of a writ petition, and a party seeking compensation enhancement cannot subsequently challenge the acquisition proceedings.
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Right which has been lost due to passage of time cannot be revived by virtue of deposit of amount subsequent to orders of High Court.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.