Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Siddharth Mridul and Gaurang Kanth, JJ. dismissed the writ petition as it was filed after almost 62 years challenging the acquisition proceedings whose enhanced compensation has been enjoyed already by the petitioners merely on the basis of coming to knowledge of a recent Supreme Court pronouncement declaring the notifications that led to proceedings being bad in law.
The facts of the case are such that Late Dewan Kesho Das ‘predecessor in interest’ was a displaced person under Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 “Displaced Persons Act” successfully participated in the public auction of the ‘evacuee property’ in the year 1959 and executed an Indemnity Bond in favour of the President of India for the 10% of bid amount. Being declared as the highest bidder, he was directed to deposit the balance purchase price and even though the provisional possession of the evacuee property was offered the predecessor in interest never took the possession.
The predecessor-in-interest in year 1959 accepted the offer made by the Settlement Commissioner and offered their verified amount towards the balance purchase price. After adjusting the verified amounts, the sale certificate was finally issued in the year 1961. The Delhi Administration ‘Respondent 2′ issued the impugned Notifications on 13-11-1959 and 18-08-1960 ‘notifications’ and accordingly acquired the evacuee property. The predecessor, in interest being aware of the acquisition proceedings in respect of the evacuee’s property accepted the compensation and further sought for enhancement of compensation which was thereby granted.
It is the case of the petitioner that the Petitioners that they came to know about the Supreme Court judgment Saraswati Devi v. Delhi Development Authority, (2013) 3 SCC 571, in the year 2021 and later sought information from the Respondents under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Accordingly, the Petitioners came to know that the impugned Notifications are bad in law as the notices under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had been issued prior to any sort of encumbrance being created on the evacuee property.
The petitioners, being son of the predecessor in interest herein filed the instant petition challenging the validity of notifications by Respondent 2 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 regarding acquisition of ‘evacuee property’.
Placing reliance on M S Dewan v. UOI, 2008 SCCOnLine Del 484, the Court noted that in the present case, there is an inordinate delay of almost 62 years in challenging the acquisition proceedings. The Petitioners accepted the enhanced compensation without reserving any right whatsoever. The law does not permit a person to approbate and reprobate at the same time. Inordinate delay in making the motion for a writ is indeed adequate ground for refusing to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, now after an inordinate delay of about 62 years after the acquisition, the Petitioners cannot challenge the said acquisition proceedings.
Further, reliance was placed on Naresh Kumar v. UOI, (2019) SCC OnLine Del 7741 wherein it was observed
“We are of the view that the petitioners cannot after such a long period seek to rake up the issue of acquisition merely on the basis of some recent pronouncements by the Hon’ble Supreme Court even when they accepted the compensation qua acquisition of the land by neither challenging the acquisition proceedings nor the award but on the other hand were only interested in enhancement of compensation for which they have sought a reference.”
The Court while dismissing the petition noted that f an axiomatic delay disentitles a party to discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
[Nardev Soni v. Union of India, WP (C) No. 7815 of 2022, decided on 05-07-2022]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Snr. Adv. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Azmat H. Amanullah, Namisha Chaddha, Nitya Sharma, Pritma Suri and Aarzoo Aneja, Advocates, for the Petitioner;
Jitesh Vikram Srivastava and Prajesh Vikram Srivastava, Advocates, for the Union of India ‘R1′;
Manika Tripathy Pandey, Shubham Hasija and Ashutosh Kaushik, Advocates, for R3;
Yeeshu Jain and Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates, for R 9.
*Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.
