Delhi High Court – Orders
Vivek Kumar vs Union Of India And Ors on 3 December, 2024
Author: Yashwant Varma
Bench: Yashwant Varma, Dharmesh Sharma
$~79
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8973/2018
VIVEK KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Lakshmi Pooja, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vikrant N. Goyal and Mr.
Aditya Shukla, Advs. for R-
1/UOI
Ms. Manika Tripathy, SC with
Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik and Mr.
Barun Dey, Advs. for DDA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
ORDER
% 03.12.2024
1. This writ petition has been preferred seeking the following
reliefs:
“a) Issue writ of declaration declaring the acquisition proceedings
together with the impugned notifications and award (if any) to be
illegal, unconstitutional and null and void and issue writ of
Certiorari to quash Notification No. F.15(245)/60-LSG/L&H dated
24.10.1961 issued Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (herein referred as to the „Act‟) and the subsequent
declaration of Notification No. F.4(5)/63-L&H. (I) dated
06.12.1966 issued Under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894; and all acquisition proceedings there under including award
(if passed) vis-à-vis the land Khasra No. 51/29 or Khasra
No.51/29/2, area 02 Bigha 18 Biswa, in the revenue estate of
village Badli, Delhi has lapsed due to the failure on the part of the
respondents in not issuing the notification under Section 6 of the
Land Acquisition Act within the stipulated time of one year from
the date of notification U/S 4 of the Land Acquisition Act;
b) Writ, order or direction in the nature of prohibition thereby
restraining the respondents, their officers, agents ·or their
representatives or anybody claiming through them fromThis is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/12/2024 at 02:00:45
dispossessing the petitioner from her settled possession over the
land in dispute as found mentioned in writ petition and changing
the nature, title and character of land in dispute falling in the
revenue estate of Village- Badli, Delhi.
c) Award costs of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner;
d) Any other or further writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble
Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
present case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”
2. We record at the outset that when the writ petition was initially
entertained on 27 August 2018, an order of status quo came to be
passed and which operates to date.
3. From the disclosures made by the respondents, we find that the
proceedings for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 18941
were commenced pursuant to the issuance of a notification under
Section 4 of the Act on 24 October 1961. This was followed by a
declaration under Section 6 on 06 December 1966. Subsequently, as
per the Land Acquisition Collector2, the Award was rendered
sometime in 1973-74 in terms of Award No. 40B/1973-74. Thereafter,
and according to the respondents, the physical possession of the land
was transferred to the Delhi Development Authority3 on 27 July
1978. It is decades thereafter that the petitioner asserts having
purchased the land from the original landholders in 1993.
4. It was submitted by learned counsels for the respondents that
this would constitute the first ground that would disentitle the writ
petitioner from the grant of relief that is claimed.
5. We take note of the evident laches in mounting the present
challenge and which would clearly constitute a stale claim as was
1
Act
2
LAC
3
DDA
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/12/2024 at 02:00:45
explained by the Supreme Court and was noticed by us in Snehi vs.
Govt. of NCT Delhi & Ors.4:
“6. Reverting then to the challenge which stands raised to the
original acquisition itself, and bearing in mind the fact that the
Notification under Section 4 was issued on 27 June 1996 followed
by a public notice issued on 21 November 2012 coupled with the
fact that the petitioner of its own admission acquired interest only
post acquisition, we find absolutely no justification to consider
granting prayers (i) to (iii) as sought.
7. We bear in mind the following pertinent observations that came
to be rendered by Supreme Court in Mahavir and Ors. vs. Union of
India and Ors. Dealing with the assertion of stale claims and in the
context of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013, the Supreme Court in Mahavir had held as
follows:
“21. The Court is duty-bound to prevent the abuse of the
process of law in the cases which have been concluded
several decades before, in our considered opinion, the
provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act cannot be
invoked in such cases of dead claims or stale claims. There
are several numbers of cases coming to this Court in which
matters had been contested up to this Court questioning the
acquisition and the petitions have been dismissed by this
Court, and acquisition has attained finality, possession was
taken, the award passed. Notice had been issued under
Section 12(2) of the Act tendering the awarded amount but
it has not been collected by the claimants/landowners
deliberately or they had refused to collect it and are not
ready and willing to accept it and, thereafter, it has been
deposited in the name and account of the owners in the
treasury which is also deposited as per the State
Government’s instructions issued time to time relating to
how government money is to be dealt with. The act of
failure to deposit money under Section 31 after possession
is taken only imposes liability to pay higher interest under
Section 34. The acquisition would not lapse under the Act.
22. In our opinion, the cases in which there is deliberate
action of the owners for not collecting the compensation
and they do not want to receive it, Section 24(2) of the 2013
Act does not come to their rescue as provisions are to help
those persons who are deprived of compensation but not for4
W.P.(C) 15273/2024 dated 29 October 2016This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/12/2024 at 02:00:45
those who deliberately had not received it and litigated for
decades for quashing of proceedings avoiding to receive
compensation by wilful act. The failure to deposit in court
under Section 31(1) in such cases would attract only interest
as envisaged under Section 34 of the Act and the provisions
of Section 24 cannot be so invoked in such cases.
23. In the instant case, the claim has been made not only
belatedly, but neither the petitioners nor their previous three
generations had ever approached any of the 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
suffer from 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 of
inquiry after the lapse of a reasonable period of time and
beneficial provisions of Section 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.
25. The High Court has observed that Raisina is a part of
the Lutyens zone of Delhi. It is prime locality of New Delhi
and government offices, etc. are located. The petitioners
asked the High Court to infer and conclude that in the
absence of some indication of the record being made
available by them that their ancestors have not ever received
any compensation. How the petitioners came to know that
their ancestors had not received compensation has not been
disclosed in the petition. The High Court has rightly
declined to entertain such claims. The protective umbrella
of Section 24 is not available to barred claims. If such
claims are entertained under Section 24, it would be very-
very difficult to distinguish with the frivolous claim that
may be made even after tampering the records, etc. or due
to non-availability of such record after so much lapse of
time. Once right had been lost due to delay and laches or
otherwise, it cannot be revived under provisions of Section
24 of the 2013 Act. The intendment of the 2013 Act is not
to revive stale and dead claims and in the concluded caseThis is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/12/2024 at 02:00:46
when rights have been finally lost. If there is delay and
laches or claim is otherwise barred, it is not revived under
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The provision does not
operate to revive legally barred claims.
26. The provision of Section 24 does not invalidate courts
judgments/orders in which right have been finally lost or
due to inaction is barred. Law does not permit examination
of barred or totally fraudulent claims. The provisions of the
law cannot be permitted to be defrauded or misused. Section
24(2) of the 2013 Act cannot be invoked in such cases. The
High Court has rightly declined to entertain the writ
petitions filed by the petitioners. It is not conceivable how
the petitioners could file such a petition in a laconic manner
relating to the prime locality at New Delhi that too for
hundreds of acres with the delay of more than 100 years.
27. The prayers that have been made in writ petition are not
only misconceived, there is an attempt to stop the ongoing
construction activity. It has also been mentioned that
government offices, etc. have come up and the Government
has leased property to private parties also but still, the
prayer has been made to stop the construction activity. It
passes comprehension how such relief could ever be asked
for. No authority had ever been approached by the
petitioners or by their ancestors. As such the petition is
aimed at the total misuse of the process of law. Even for a
moment, such a petition could not have been received for
consideration.
28. We have seen in a large number of cases that the
acquisition had attained finality, compensation had been
tendered but not received and development had also taken
place. The petitions are being filed in the courts under the
provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act that they have
not been paid any compensation. In fact, if there is any such
grievance, they themselves are responsible for not collecting
the compensation that was offered and tendered to them.
The provision of Section 24 is not intended to apply and
extend help in such cases.”
6. Following, the aforesaid view as expressed and in a string of
decisions rendered thereafter, a Division Bench of this Court in
Baldev Singh and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors had held:
“11. The Supreme Court has dealt with the issue of delay
and laches in Mahavir v. Union of India, (2018) 3 SCC 588,
in the context of the 2013 Act. The said judgment is
unambiguous in emphasising that claims where there is totalThis is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/12/2024 at 02:00:46
inaction are not meant to be revived by the 2013 Act…….
xxxxxx
12. The aforesaid Judgment has been considered by the
Supreme Court in the decision of Indore Development
Authority v. Shailendra reported at (2018) 3 SCC 412,
relevant portion of which is reproduced hereinunder:–
“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 sought for 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 of drawing 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 of the
previous decisions in which such plea ought to have
been raised and such decisions would operate as res
judicata or constructive res judicata. 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 of the Act of 2013 does not
supersede or annul the court’s decision and the
provisions cannot be misused to reassert such claims
once over again. Once Panchnama has been drawn
and by way of drawing the Panchnama physical
possession has been taken, the case cannot be
reopened under the guise of section 24 of Act of 2013.
129. Section 24 is not intended to come to the aid of
those 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 of their possession for
five years or more; in both the scenarios, fault/cause
not being attributable to the landowners/claimants.
130. We are of the view that stale or dead claims
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/12/2024 at 02:00:46
cannot be the subject-matter of judicial probing
under section 24 of the 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 come barred, either due to inaction or
otherwise by operation of law. 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
of such blatant misuse of the provisions of law could
never have been the intention behind enacting the
provisions of section 24 (2) of the 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.”
(emphasis supplied)
13. This Court has also dealt with the issue of delay and
laches in the case of Mool Chand v. Union of India (W.P.
(C) 4528/2015) dated 17th January 2019, wherein the Court
while elaborating the decision of Mahavir v. Union of
India, (2018) 3 SCC 588 and Indore Development
Authority v. Shailendra, (2018) 3 SCC 412, on the aspect of
delay and laches, made the following observations:
“34. The question then arises whether only the points
of difference between the decisions in Pune Municipal
Corporation (supra) and Indore Development
Authority v. Shailendra (supra) and all issues
incidental thereto have been referred to the
Constitution Bench? In this context it requires to be
noted that although several questions were framed
in Indore Development
Authority v. Shailendra (supra), it is only on Question
I, viz., on whether the deposit in the RD Account
would amount to having tendered compensation for
the purposes of Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act, that
there was a difference of opinion between the view
expressed in the two decisions viz., Pune Municipal
Corporation (supra) and Indore Development
Authority v. Shailendra (supra).
35. The other point of difference was that arising
in Yogesh Neema v. State of MP (supra) where the
correctness of the decision in Sree Balaji Nagar
Residential Association v. State of TamilThis is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/12/2024 at 02:00:46
Nadu (supra) as regards exclusion of the period
covered by the interim orders from the calculation of
the period of five years under Section 24 (2) of the
2013 Act was questioned. On this point the three-
Judge Bench in Indore Development
Authority v. Shailendra (supra) unanimously
overruled the decision in Sree Balaji Nagar
Residential Association v.State of Tamil
Nadu (supra). On this issue no subsequent Bench of
the Supreme Court of co-ordinate strength appears to
have taken a contrary view. It is doubtful, therefore,
whether this issue would be examined by the
Constitution Bench.
36. Relevant to the issue on hand, there was no
difference of view qua Question III addressed
in Indore Development
Authority v. Shailendra (supra) i.e. “Whether section
24 of Act of 2013 revives barred and stale claims?”
On this question there was no view (much less a
contrary view) expressed in Pune Municipal
Corporation (supra) or for that matter in any other
subsequent decision of a smaller, co-ordinate or
even larger Bench of the Supreme Court. This
question, therefore, was not the subject matter of
reference before the Constitution Bench.
37. Consequently, this Court is of the view that
although the order passed by the Constitution Bench
refers to “all the aspects” being considered by the
Constitution Bench, that expression would not
include questioning the correctness of the decision
of the three-Judge Bench in Indore Development
Authority v. Shailendra (supra) as far as it holds by a
unanimous opinion that Section 24 (2) of the 2013
Act cannot revive old and stale claims.”
(emphasis supplied)
14. Similar orders have been passed in several other cases,
such as in the case of Sushma Purthi v. Union of
India (W.P. (C) 586 of 2016) dated 31st January
2019, Krishan v. Union of India (W.P. (C) 4919 of 2014)
dated 25th January 2019, Mohd. Mian v. Union of
India (W.P. (C) 2702/2019) dated 5th February 2019. The
aforenoted cases have been dismissed by this court on the
ground of delay and laches. Challenge against these
judgments have been dismissed by the Supreme Court vide
SLP (C) No. 11481/2019, SLP (C) No. 13423/2019 and
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/12/2024 at 02:00:46
SLP (C) No. 8848/2019, respectively.
15. Thus, in view of the foregoing discussion, the present
petition is not maintainable on merits as well on the ground
of delay and laches. Accordingly, the present petition is
dismissed. Interim orders stand vacated.”
7. We consequently find no justification whatsoever to entertain
the writ petition for reliefs which are claimed and form part of
clauses (i), (ii) and (iii). We are of the firm opinion that the
petitioner is clearly not entitled to assail or question the acquisition
which was initiated in 1996. ”
6. We, consequently, find no justification to issue the writs as
prayed for.
7. The writ petition fails and shall stand dismissed.
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
DHARMESH SHARMA, J.
DECEMBER 3, 2024
spThis is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/12/2024 at 02:00:46