Jugbir Singh And ORS v. Union Of India And ORS
$~29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + JUGBIR SINGH AND ORS ..... Petitioners Through:
Mr Anuraj Tirathankar, Advocate.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through:
Mr Manish Mohan, CGSC for UOI with Ms Manisha Saroha, Advocates.
Mr Arjun Pant, Advocate for DDA.
Mr R.K. Sharma, Advocate for GNCTD.
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
O R D E R
% 23.04.2019
1. The prayers in the petition read as under: i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby, inter alia, declaring that acquisition proceedings in respect of the land belonging to the petitioners i.e, to the extent of 1/6th share of 1/4th of the land (7-7.5 bigha) falling in Khasra No. 330/93, 65, 66 and 89 situated in the revenue estate of Village Masoodpur, New Delhi, have been lapsed on the commencement of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; ii) issue a writ or any other appropriate writ, order or direction
thereby direct the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioners qua the land subject matter of the present writ petition;
iii) Issue a writ or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby direct the respondent to correct the revenue record by reflecting the names of petitioners in respect of land 1/6th share of 1/4th of the land (7-7.5 bigha) falling in Khasra No. 330/93, 65, 66 and 89 situated in the revenue estate of Village Masoodpur, New Delhi, as owner in place of the Union of India i.e. Respondent No. 1."
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 23rd December, 1968. The impugned Award No.90/80-81 was passed on 22nd December 1980. 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 including Mool Chand v. 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 Petitioners seeks liberty to withdraw this petition with liberty to file a fresh petition giving the proper explanation for inordinate delay in the Petitioners approaching the Court for relief.
5. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty prayed for. The points urged in the counter affidavits of the LAC and the DDA are reserved to be raised at the appropriate stage.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
I.S. MEHTA, J.
APRIL 23, 2019 rd