SHAM SUNDER KHANNA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It has been contended before me by Mr.Kalra, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the case is squarely covered by a Full Bench decision of this Court Roshanara Begum Vs.Union of India reported in 1996(1) AD(Delhi) 7.

(2.) On the other hand, Mr.Bansal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4-Delhi Development Authority (in short 'DDA'), has contended that the writ petition has been filed at a belated stage and the petitioner must suffer for delay and laches and on this preliminary ground the petition be dismissed. Mr.Bansal has further contended that the Notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in the year 1959 i.e. 13.11.1959, whereas declaration was issued under Section6 of the Act on 21.1.1969 and the award was made in the year 1981-82. According to Mr.Bansal, the possession of the land in question was taken in the year 1986, which is disputed by Mr.Kalra. On the basis of these averments, Mr.Bansal has contended that writ petition was filed in 1987, therefore, there was delay in filing the writ petition and petition be dismissed.

(3.) Mr.Kalra has argued that the petitioner had purchased this land in an auction from the Rehabilitation Department and the land is an evacuee property and Notification issued under Section4 of the Act in turn did not apply to the land in question. He has relied upon para-193 of Roshanara Begum's case (supra). On the basis of observations made in the case of Roshanara Begum's case (supra), Mr.Kalra has contended that the petitioner's land could not have been the subject-matter of the Notification issued under Section4 of the Land Acquisition Act and, therefore, any subsequent proceedings initiated would be invalid and thee is no delay and laches as far as the petitioner is concerned. He has also disputed the claim of the respondent that the posession of the land in question was taken in the year 1986, on the other hand, Mr.Kalra has contended that the possession of the petitioner's land was forcibly taken by the respondent-DDA in the year 1993 and the petitioner had filed a contempt petition (CCPNo.104/1994) in the year 1994.