Mange Ram v. Govt Of NCT Of Delhi & ORS

$~62 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7646/2018 MANGE RAM ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr.Aman Mehrotra, Advocate.

versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents Through:

Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for LAC/L&B.

Mr.Sukhbeer Kour Bajwa, Advocate for R1/DDA.

Ms.Ruchira Gupta with Mr.Anurag Sharma, Advocates for R3/DJB.

CORAM:

JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA

O R D E R

% 14.05.2019

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 of acquired land in respect of land of the petitioner father cobhumidar of the land to the extent of their 1/3rd share i.e. (08-06) and the petitioner extent of their l/18th share i.e. 01 Bigha 08 Biswas land in bearing Khasra No. 500 (04-16), 505 (04-16), 503 (02-19), 504/1 (00-18) 504/2 (03-18), 501/ (04-16), 506/1 (03-14), total land measuring 25 Bigha 07 Biswas Situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Karawal Nagar, Shahdra, Delhi- arising out of Award No.29/78-79 dated 20/11/1978, Award No.l 25/1986-87 dated 19/09/1986 and Award No. 16/83-84 dated 30/06/1983.

In view of the provisions of Section 24(2) of Right of Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,2013. b). To pay oil benefits/alternative plots/industrial plot/DDA Flat etc.

Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,2013."

2. The narration in the petition reveals that pursuant to the relevant notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 („LAA‟) along with declarations under Section 6 LAA, the impugned Award Nos. 29/78-79, 16/83-84 and 125/1986-87 were passed on 20th November 1978, 30th June 1983 and 19th September 1986 respectively. 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 including Mool Chandv. Union of India 2019(173) DRJ 595[DB] followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mahavir v. Union of India (2018) 3 SCC 588 and dismissed similar petitions on the ground of 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 a proper explanation for inordinate delay in the Petitioner approaching the Court for relief. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty prayed for. The points urged in the affidavit of the DJB are left open to be urged at the appropriate stage.

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

I.S. MEHTA, J.

MAY 14, 2019 / rd