ASHOK KUMAR MITTAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts of the case, as set out in the present petition, are that during the years 1971-72 the petitioners and/or their predecessors in interest purchased properties, subject matter of this writ petition, from various bhumidars/colonizers through registered sale deed. The petitioners as well as their members through their association (Ashok Nagar Welfare Association) applied for mutation of their respective land in the revenue records in the year 1980 but the mutation was not carried out. Somewhere in the year 1984 the petitioners came to know that their respective land/property has been acquired by the respondents in the year 1982. The case of the petitioners is that this acquisition is bad in law as the land was acquired without their knowledge and no notice was served upon the petitioners, however, the petitioners continued to remain in possession of their land/property.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no. 5 i.e. Ashok Nagar Welfare Association during the year 1984 to 2006 instituted various legal proceedings challenging the acquisition, however, the petitioners were forcibly evicted by other trespassers and civil suits filed against such persons were also dismissed. Counsel further submits that respondent no. 5 also challenged the attempts made by respondent State for alleged regularization of the unauthorised colony/illegal constructions erected by the land trespassers over the petitioners land for which the DDA never took actual physical possession and even failed to protect the same. However, the challenge made by the association in this regard was also unsuccessful. Since respondent no. 5 association of which petitioners are admittedly members failed to get any relief from the Single Judge/appeals/Special Leave Petitions, the petitioners have approached this Court for various reliefs.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the acquisition proceedings pertaining to acquisition of the land in 1982 are bad in law and a nullity in view of the fact that no notice was served to the petitioners and further the respondents ignored the sale deeds in favour of the petitioners. Counsel further submits that the respondents did not recognize the petitioners to be the rightful owner and thus no compensation was paid to them. Counsel next submits that as a consequence of this, the benefit, which has accrued to the petitioners for grant of alternate plot, under Section 22 of the DDA Act has also been denied to these petitioners. Counsel next submits that the petitioners were dispossessed without any authority or force of law and till such time the case of the petitioners are decided in their favour and they are heard the petitioners are well within their rights in filing proceedings for the same relief which have earlier been denied. Counsel for the petitioners submits that DDA did not take actual possession of the land though they repeatedly claimed before the High Court and Supreme Court to have taken actual possession of the acquired law and thereby succeeded in getting orders/judgments in their favour.