Bilqis Begum & ORS v. Union Of India & ORS
$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 11360/2018 & CM APPL. 44015/2018 BILQIS BEGUM & ORS ..... Petitioners Through:
Mr. S.K. Rout, Advocate with Mr.
Aman Mehrotra, Advocate.
versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through:
Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi for LAC/L&B.
Mr. Pawan Mathur, Standing Counsel for DDA.
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
O R D E R
% 19.02.2019
1. The prayers in this petition read as under: "a. pass a writ order or direction in the nature of a writ of declaration, declaring the acquisition proceedings initiated in respect of the land of the petitioners, bearing Khasra No. 323 min, admeasuring 66 bighas in the revenue estate of Village Okhla, Delhi, as deemed to have lapsed in view often provisions of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; b. That the physical possession unauthorizedly taken by the respondents be ordered to handed over to the petitioners or in the alternative the said land may kindly be ordered to be acquired under the new land acquisition Act in terms of the provisions in accordance with law;
c. pass such other or further orders as deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. According to the narration in the petition, the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('LAA') was issued on 23rd June 1989 which was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of LAA on 22nd June 1990. The Award No. 17/1992-93 was passed way back on 19th June 1992. There is no explanation in the entire 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 decision has also been followed by this Court in several orders including the order dated 10th January, 2019 in WP(C) No. 4528/2015 (Mool Chandv. Union of India) and similar petitions have been dismissed on the ground of laches.
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks leave to withdraw this petition with liberty to file a fresh petition properly explaining the inordinate delay in approaching the Court for relief.
5. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. S. MURALIDHAR, J.
SANJEEV NARULA, J.
FEBRUARY 19, 2019 ss