High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/6572/2017

Yogender Singh And ORS v. Union Of India And ORS

2019-03-26Hon'Ble Dr. Justice S.Muralidhar,Hon'Ble Mr. Justice I.S.Mehta3 pages

$~29 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 6572/2017 YOGENDER SINGH AND ORS ..... Petitioners Through:

Mr.Aman Mehrotra, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through:

Mr.Rajneesh Sharma, Advocate for R-1 & R-2.

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

Mr.Vaibhav Agnihotri, Advocate with Mr.Vinayak Harshvardhan, Advocate for DDA.

CORAM:

JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA

O R D E R

% 26.03.2019

1. The prayers in the petition read as under: "a) issue a writ of certiorari and/or any other writ, order or direction of the similar nature declaring the acquisition proceedings with respect of the land measuring 15 Biswa (1/3'''' share each) falling in Khasra number 61/10 in revenue village Mamurpur, Delhi forming part of the Award No. 202/86-87 dated 19.9.1986 as having lapsed and/or; b) issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other writ, order

or direction of the similar nature thereby directing the respondents to restore the possession of the subject land back to the petitioner and/or in alternative; c) issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other writ, order or direction of the similar nature thereby directing the respondents to pay to the petitioner the compensation in terms of the new Act, 2013 and/or;

d) pass any other or further direction and/or order which the Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."

2. The narration in the petition reveals that notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('LAA') was issued on 30th October 1963, followed by declaration under Section 6 of the LAA on 16th January 1969. The impugned Award No. 202/86-87 was passed on 19th September 1986. 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 Chand v. Union of India 2019 (173) DRJ 595 (DB), following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mahavir v. Union of India (2018) 3 SCC 588 dismissed similar matters on account of delay and 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.

5. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty prayed for. S.MURALIDHAR, J I.S.MEHTA, J MARCH 26, 2019 sr