High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/3654/2018

Rohtas Singh v. Government Of NCT Of Delhi & ORS

2019-01-17Hon'Ble Dr. Justice S.Muralidhar,Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula2 pages

$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3654/2018 ROHTAS SINGH ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Lalit Kumar Rawal, Advocate versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents Mr. Yeeshu Jain with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for Respondent/LAC/L & B Ms. Arti Bansal, Advocate for Respondent/DDA

CORAM:

JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 17.01.2019

1. The prayers in the petition read as under: "a) issue a writ of Mandamus or any other suitable or direction in the like nature thereby directing the respondents to pay suitable commercial compensation in respect agricultural land the petitioner land com prised Khasra No. letc./41/l total land measuring 07 Bigha 04 Biswas in petitioner entitled 1/3rd share i.e. (02 Biswas 08 Biswas 2400 sq.yds. of the petitioner share) Situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Ziauddinpur, Shahdra, Delhi-arising out of award No. 1166 dated 11/D7/1961 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 fat etc. admissible under the law in view of the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,2013.

c) Any other and further relief which this Hon'ble court may deem

fit and proper under the circumstances of the case may also be allowed in favour of the Petitioner."

2. The narration in the petition reveals that notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 („LAA‟) was issued on 16th March 1961. Subsequent to declaration under Section 6 LAA, the impugned Award No.1166 was passed on 11th June 1961. 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 Petitioner seeks liberty to withdraw this petition with liberty to file a fresh petition giving the proper explanation for inordinate delay in the Petitioner approaching the Court for relief.

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 The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty prayed for.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

SANJEEV NARULA, J.

JANUARY 17, 2019 mw