High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/261/2018

Sunil & ANR v. Government Of NCT Of Delhi & ORS

2019-01-28Hon'Ble Dr. Justice S.Muralidhar,Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula2 pages

$~38 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 261/2018 SUNIL & ANR.

..... Petitioners Through:

Mr. Aman Mehrotra, Advocate versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents Through:

Mr. S.Nagarajan, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2/LAC/L & B Deptt.

Mr. Arjun Pant, Advocate for Respondent/DDA

CORAM:

JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 28.01.2019

1. The prayers in the petition read as under: "a) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other suitable writ, order or direction in the like nature thereby directing the respondents to pay suitable compensation in respect acquired land comprised of Khasra No.489, out of total land measuring 13 Bigha 04 Biswas in 1/9th share i.e. 01 Bigha 10 Biswas held by late Garebha Ram Son of Late Sh.Khachedu, Situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Ghonda Gujran Khadar, Shahdra, Delhi- arising out of award No.09/1973-74 in view of the provisions of Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

(b) To pay all benefits/alternative plots/Industrial plot/DDA flat etc. admissible under the low in view of the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,2013."

2. The narration in the petition reveals that the notification under Section 4

of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 („LAA‟) was issued on 24th October 1961, followed by declaration under Section 6 of the LAA on 2nd September, 1966. The impugned Award No.09/1973-74 was passed on 5th June, 1973. There is no explanation in the petition for the inordinate delay in approaching the Court for relief.

3. This Court has in a series of orders following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mahavir v. Union of India (2018) 3 SCC 588 dismissed similar matters on account of delay and laches.

4. In that view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioners seeks liberty to withdraw this petition with liberty to file a fresh petition giving a proper explanation for inordinate delay in the Petitioners approaching the Court for relief.

5. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty prayed for. S. MURALIDHAR, J.

SANJEEV NARULA, J.

JANUARY 28, 2019 mw