Ram Kumar v. Govt Of NCT Of Delhi & ORS

$~61 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7645/2018 RAM KUMAR ..... 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. Arun Birbal & Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocates for Respondent/DDA

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 of the petitioner i.e. Ratte Ram is recorded owner of the agricultural land of bearing Khasra No. 1/43/2 (00-16), 1/64 (08-08), 1/65 (0518)1/66 (01-18) 1/67 (12-12), 1/68(01-18) total land measuring 31 Bigha 07 Biswas in petitioner extent 1/12th share i.e. (02-16) out of total land measuring 31 Bigha 07 Biswas (the petitioner father is Recorded owner in Revenue Record) Situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Ziauddinpur, Shahdra, Delhi- arising out of Award No. 1954 dated 27/02/1967 . 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 all benefits/alternative plots/industrial plot/DDA

Flat etc. as per revenue record admissible under the law 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 notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 („LAA‟) was issued on 24th October 1961, followed by declaration under Section 6 LAA on 1st August 1966. The impugned Award No.1954 was passed on 27th February 1967. 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 ahe proper explanation for inordinate delay in the Petitioner approaching the Court for relief. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty prayed for.

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

I.S. MEHTA, J.

MAY 14, 2019 / rd