CHATRO DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This bunch of writ petitions clearly demonstrate the unfair results of, delay in administrative actions as well as inordinate delay in dispensation of justice. Proper administration of justice imposes an obligation upon the courts to expeditiously deal with the cases so that a party to a lis entitled to the relief in accordance with law, should be able to enjoy the fruits of favourable order or decree, may it be a private party or the State. Administration of justice requires all the organs of the State including judiciary to ensure speedy justice, as long delays can more than often lead to divergent views and thus create multiplicity of litigation. The principle of consistency and judicial discipline can be effectively adhered to, provided there is proper court management by the Registry, the parties to the lis take such administrative measures and extend full cooperation to the Court by giving complete list of cases based on similar facts, where common question of law and fact arise for consideration, from the same notifications. Non-cooperation by the petitioners and the careless attitude of the State has primarily led to state of affairs as are exhibited by these cases where notification by the Delhi Administration were issued in the year 1980 and some of the writ petitions await their final disposal even as of today. During this interregnum period various judgments in the connected cases or somewhat similar cases have been pronounced, which to some extent, took divergent views and rendering the determination of the matters in issue in the present writ petition more complex. In this background, it is necessary for us not only to refer the facts giving rise to the present petition but the judicial pronouncements by the Supreme Court and this Court, in matters arising from the same notifications and in regard to the same villages.

(2.) By this judgment, I would dispose of abovereferred 81 writ petitions as they arise from the same notification and the facts and grounds pleaded in the writ petitions are similar. However, for the purpose of brevity, I would be referring to the facts and grounds taken in the cases of Smt.Chatro Devi Vs. Union of India & Ors. CW 424/1987 and Rati Ram Vs. Union of India & Ors. CW No.1941/1985, as with the consent of parties appearing in all these petitions, they were taken as lead cases.

(3.) Smt.Chatro Devi, claimed to be owner of land measuring 0 bigha 4 biswas out of khasra No.1676/1, 0 bigha 12 biswas out of khasra No.1676/2, 0 bigha 12 biswa out of khasra No.1676/3, 0 bigha 4 biswas out of khasra No.1676/4, 0 bigha 12 biswas out of khasra Nos.1676/5, 0 bigha 12 biswas out of khasra no.1676/6, 4 bigha 7 biswas out of khasra No.1669min, 4 bigha 16 biswas out of khasra No.1670, 4 bigha 16 biswas out of khasra No.1671, 4 bigha 16 biswas out of khasra No.1677, 4 bigha 16 biswas out of khasra No.1678 and 1 bigha 3 biswas out of khasra No.1679 total measuring 27 bigha 10 biswas in the revenue estate of Village Chhattarpur, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi. According to the petitioner, it was an agricultural land and she had been in actual physical cultivatory possession of the same for the last more than 25 years even till the filing of the petition in the year 1987. The Land & Building Department of Delhi Administration issued a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') bearing No.F.9(16)/80- L&B dated 25th November, 1980 stating that the entire land in the revenue estate of Villages Chattarpur, Satbari, Maidangarhi, Shayoorpur and Rajpur Khurd was intended to be acquired by the Government at public expense and for a public purpose namely `Planned Development of Delhi'. The lands which were excluded from the acquisition were specifically mentioned in the notification itself. There is no averment, in this petition whether the petitioner filed an objection before the Collector in terms of section 5-A of the Act. A declaration under section 6 of the Act was published by the respondents on 7th June, 1985 being No.F.9(26)/85-L&B making a reference to the previous notification dated 25th November, 1980 and acquiring 7142.80 acres of land in Village Chhattarpur, details of which were duly mentioned in the said notification. According to the petitioners, they were not aware about the publication of the said declaration and came to know of the said declaration as well as the acquisition of their lands when they received notices under section 9(1) of the Act directing them to appear either personally or through counsel to file claims/recording measurement/title of the land and for compliance of the proceedings under section 10(1) of the Act. These notices are stated to have been received by the petitioners somewhere in the year 1987 and whereafter the present petitioner filed this writ petition in February, 1987 itself. On 17th February, 1987, Division Bench of this Court passed the following orders in that writ petition :- Present : Mr.D.K. Goel for the petitioner. CW No.424/87 Rule. CM No.709/87 Notice to the respondents for 26th March, 1987. Dispossession of the petitioner is stayed in the meanwhile. Sd/-Yogeshwar Dayal,J. February 17, 1987. Sd/pMahinder Narain,J.