DHARAMPAL Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is destined to dismissal not only because the same has been filed after an unexplained and inordinate delay of nearly 100 years but also because the petition is deficient in terms of material facts and particulars. The petitioner claims to be the grandson of one Jai Mai who owned certain property, the details whereof have not been set out in the petition but which has, according to the petitioner, devolved upon him by succession after the death of his father and grandfather. From a reading of the applications which the petitioner appears to have filed before the Collector, Land Acquisition, Delhi between 4th September, 1996 to 30th September, 2005, it appears that the petitioner claims to be owner of land situate in khasra numbers 76,77,26,27,64, 70, 277, 279, 71, 297, 298 and 69 in village Pillanji previously known as Arbpur Bagh Mochi, New Delhi. From the applications, it is further evident that the said land was acquired from the owner in terms of Awards No.25, 26 & 27, dated 30th October, 1912.

(2.) The prayer made in the applications aforementioned was for release of the payment of compensation determined for the said land in terms of Awards No.25, 26 and 27. The petition also alleges that the awards in question are widely rumoured to have been set aside but despite efforts made by the petitioner, no information is made available to the petitioner on that account. The petition goes on to state that in the year 2005, after the petitioner's son joined the bar as an advocate, he learnt through him about the decision of the Supreme Court in Parsottam Bhai Magan Bhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat JT 2005 8 SC 146 that the period of limitation prescribed for seeking a reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act started from the date the land owners came to know about the making of the award. The present writ petition was, thereafter, filed with the prayer that awards No. 25, 26 and 27 should be quashed and the respondents directed to hand over the possession of the land back to the petitioner with cost.

(3.) We have heard Mr. Bindra, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. As noticed earlier, the writ petition does not state the complete facts necessary for a proper adjudication of the matter. The petition does not disclose the dates and particulars of the preliminary notification or the declaration under Section 6 issued pursuant thereto. It does not disclose the dates on which the awards were made by the Collector pursuant to the said notifications or the amount which was determined under the said awards towards compensation payable to Jai Mai through whom the petitioner claims his right. It also does not state the date on which Jai Mal was dispossessed and whether Jai Mal had or had not received the compensation under the awards. Even certified copies of the awards in question have not been produced. What is enclosed with the petition is a xerox copy of what purports to be a statement showing the compensation awarded on acquisition made under Punjab Government Notification dated 1st December, 1911 and the Government of India endorsement dated 10th October, 1912. An illegible xerox copy of award No. 2725 is placed along with record a typed copy in which the illegible portions have been left out. Suffice it to say that document marked Annexure P-2 purports to determine the compensation for the land acquired from the owners including that for wells, other wells, buildings and trees found on the same. There is, however, nothing to show that the amount of compensation so determined was not tendered to the owners held entitled to the same before or after taking possession of the acquired lands. The writ petition is thus a half baked and clumsy effort to agitate the matter after nearly 100 years since the acquisition had taken place without so much as making a specific assertion to the effect that compensation determined under the awards made by the Collector was never disbursed to the owners. Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act requires the Collector to pay to the owners the compensation before taking possession. The petitioner has, in ground 'C of the petition, admitted that the owners stood dispossessed from the land in question. In ground 'C, the petitioner has made the following assertion :