Manmeet Singh Pruthi v. Land Acquistion Collector (South-East) & ORS

$~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9559/2016 MANMEET SINGH PRUTHI ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Arun Kumar Kaushik, Advocate.

versus LAND ACQUISTION COLLECTOR (SOUTH-EAST) & ORS.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Yeeshu Jain with Ms. Shilphi Chaudhary, Advocate for LAC, L&B.

CORAM:

JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA

O R D E R

% 08.04.2019 1.

The prayer in the petition reads as under:

"a) Issue a writ/ order/ direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record of the land acquisition proceedings in respect of piece of land admeasuring 4 Bighas and 4 Biswas which forms 84/456th part out of a total of 22 Bighas and 14 Biswas comprised in Khasra No. 739 situated in the revenue estate of Village Tughlakabad, Delhi acquired vide Award No. 50-A/Supp./1969-70 dated 04.11.1981, and further to pass appropriate writ/ order/ direction declaring the acquisition proceedings with respect to the said land to have lapsed after coming into force of the 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 23rd January,

1965, followed by declaration under Section 6 of the LAA on 13th January, 1969. The impugned Award No.50-A/Supp./1969-70 was passed on 4th November, 1981. There is no explanation in the petition for the inordinate delay in approaching the Court for relief.

3. This Court has in the series of orders following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mahavir v. Union of India (2018) 3 SCC 588 dismissed matters on account of delay and laches. The above observations have been followed by this Court in several orders including (Mool Chand v. Union of India) 2019(173) DRJ 595[DB] and similar petitions have been dismissed 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 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 The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty prayed for. The interim order passed by this Court on 9th January, 2018 is hereby vacated. The points urged in the counter affidavits of the LAC and the DDA are reserved to be urged at the appropriate stage. S. MURALIDHAR, J.

I.S. MEHTA, J.

APRIL 08, 2019/hs