High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/6161/2015

Jai Narayan Sharma And ORS. v. Union Of India And ORS.

2017-04-18Hon'Ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat,Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Yogesh Khanna2 pages

$~49 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6161/2015 & CM No.11190/2015 JAI NARAYAN SHARMA AND ORS.

..... Petitioners Through : Dr.Surat Singh and Mr.Saurabh Agarwal, Advs.

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

..... Respondents Through : Mr.Vijay Joshi and Ms.Meenakshi Pandey, Advs. for R-1 Mr.Yeeshu Jain, St.Counsel with Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Adv. for LAC/L&B Mr.H.N.Vashishtha, Adv. for R-9

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA % 18.04.2017

O R D E R

After substantially hearing both sides, this Court is of the opinion that the contentions and issues raised in the instant petition are squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Mahavir & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors. WP(C) No.129/2017 on 10.04.2017. The Court stated that the question was a unique one - i.e. the parties claimed to be aggrieved to approach this Court, waking up like Rip Van Winkle or what may be in Indian parlance called a 'Kumbkarna' lapse of time. In other words, is it open to the petitioner or a set of WPC No.6161/2015

petitioners to resuscitate grievance several generations later to claim the protection of a later law? Such claims were never under contemplation when the acquisition was resorted to. The petitioners in that case asked this Court to infer and conclude that in the absence of some indication from the records made available by them, that their ancestors did not ever receive any compensation. No contemporary record in the form of letters, protest by them or any other communication stating that compensation was not disbursed or reference to civil proceedings for release of the amounts or seeking decree have been relied upon by the petitioners.

The Court held that if the petitioners were to be allowed to raise such grievances the courts would be open to claims from each succeeding generation, which may say that the previous generation had not received their just dues. Such claims were held not to be adjudicated upon, as they are barred and the writ petition was dismissed. For similar reasons as above, the writ petition is unmerited; it is therefore dismissed along with pending applications. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J YOGESH KHANNA, J APRIL 18, 2017/VLD WPC No.