ISHAQ Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners claim to be owners/ bhumidars as khudkasht of khasra No. 453(m) area 4.16, 454 area 4.16, 459 area 5.18, 460 area 4.16, 461 area 4.16 and 462 area 3.14 total 25.2 bigha and their share is l/3rd situated in the revenue estate of village Shyoorpur. On 25.11.1980, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued for acquisition of the land in nearly 13 villages of South Delhi including the land of the petitioners in the village Shyoorpur. Declaration under Section 6 was issued on 18.6.85. An award was published being award No. 10/87-88 on 19.5.87 wherein the Collector provided for compensation payable to the claimants which according to the petitioners they did not accept. The petitioners claim that they are in possession of the land and on 14.7.87 it was incorrectly recorded in the name of the Government as owner in possession. The petitioners while relying upon the judgments of this court in the cases of Balak Ram Gupta Vs. UOI and others 1983 APEXSOFT (DELHI) 121 = 38(1989)DLT 243 and Balbir Singh & others Vs. UOI & others 1989 APEXSOFT (DELHI) 183 = 39(1989)DLT 233, judgment of this court in review application of Balak Ram Gupta's case and the judgment of the Supreme Court in UOI & others v. Balbir Singh & others (SLP 1867/91) decided on 20.9.91, now have filed the present writ petition on 27.2.2006 stating that the respondents are claiming ownership of the land of the petitioners and the revenue records showing the Government to be owner in possession is a wrong entry in the revenue records and thus in the present writ petition, have prayed that the notification dated 25.11.80 be set aside and it be declared that the petitioners are owners of the land in question. Further, the petitioners claim the relief that the respondents be directed to restore the possession,if taken illegally during the pendency of the petition.

(2.) It may be noticed that the present petitioners before filing the present'wnt petition had filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Supreme Court being WP(C) No. 118/2006 titled as Ishaq and others Vs. UOI and others' which was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide its order dated 3.4.2006 which reads as under:- "We see no reason to interfere. The Writ Petition is dismissed.'

(3.) The averments made in the writ petition before the Supreme Court, were similar to the present writ petition and the same relief was claimed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the petitioners have a legal right to file the present petition despite the order of dismissal passed by the Supreme Court vide its order dated 3.4.2006. According to him, there is neither any legal nor proprietary impediment in the way of the petitioners in filing such petitions.