M/S. Gaurav Weldmesh Pvt Ltd v. Govt Of NCT Of Delhi & ORS.

$~40 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 8335/2015 M/S GAURAV WELDMESH PVT. LTD.

.... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Vishal Maan, Advocate.

Versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

.... Respondents Through:

Mr. Siddharth Panda, Advocate for Respondent No. 1 and 2.

CORAM:

JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH

O R D E R

% 19.08.2019

1. The prayer in the present petition reads as under: "i. Issue of an appropriate writ, order or directions declaring the entire acquisition proceedings in respect of the land of petitioner comprised in Khasra no.1785/1-2 min (1-00) measuring 1 bighas, situated in Revenue Estate, of Village Chattarpur, Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the land in question) including the notification bearing no. 9(16) /80/L&B dated 25.11.1980 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and all subsequent proceedings to have lapsed in view of Section 24 (2) 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 25th November, 1980, followed by declaration under Section 6 LAA on 7th June, 1985. The impugned Award No.15/1987-88 was passed on 5th June, 1987. There is no W.P.(C) 8335/2015 Page 1 of 2

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] followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (2018) 3 SCC 412 and dismissed similar petitions 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 a proper explanation for the inordinate delay in the Petitioner approaching the Court for relief.

5. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty prayed for. The points urged in the counter affidavit filed by the LAC, and in the rejoinder thereto on behalf of the Petitioner, are left open to be raised at the appropriate stage. S. MURALIDHAR, J.

TALWANT SINGH, J.

AUGUST 19, 2019 abc W.P.(C) 8335/2015 Page 2 of 2