Sri Ram v. Union Of India Through Land Acquisition Collector (East) & ANR

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7985/2017 SRI RAM ..... Petitioner Through:

Petitioner in person.

versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH: LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (EAST) & ANR ..... Respondents Through:

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

Ms Mrinalini Sen, Advocate for DDA.

CORAM:

JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH

O R D E R

% 09.08.2019

1. The prayer in the petition reads as under: " It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon Court may be pleased to issue a writ / order / direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of the acquisition proceedings with respect to the lands comprised in Khasra Number. 572 admeasuring 2 Bighas 17 Biswas situated in the revenue estate of village Karkadooma, Delhi acquired vide Award No. 54-A/70-71 pronounced on 05.01.1971 and further to pass appropriate writ, order or directions declaring the acquisition proceedings to have lapsed and have become inoperative under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act of 2013 as neither possession of the lands of the petitioner have been taken nor compensation with respect

to lands have been paid.

Award cost of proceedings to the humble petitioner.,"

2. The narration in the petition reveals that notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 („LAA‟) was issued on 13th November, 1959, followed by declaration under Section 6 LAA on 14th June,1966. The impugned Award No. 54A/70-71 was passed on 5th January, 1971. 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] 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 Petitioners seeks liberty to withdraw this petition with liberty to file a fresh petition giving a proper explanation for the inordinate delay in the Petitioners approaching the Court for relief.

5. The pleas raised by the DDA in their counter affidavit are left open to be urged at a later stage.

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

TALWANT SINGH, J.

AUGUST 09, 2019 rd