RAVI DUTT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is barred by inordinate and unexplained delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. It challenges the legality of a preliminary notification issued more than 27 years back and a declaration issued nearly 22 years ago in respect of an area admeasuring 43 Bighas 12 Biswas situated within the Revenue State of Village Chhattarpur, Tehsil Hauz Khas in the National Capital Territory of Delhi. An earlier petition challenging the preliminary notification was filed in the year 1984 but was dismissed as withdrawn by an order dated 5th March, 1985 with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition as and when advised. No challenge, however, was thrown to the preliminary notification or declaration under Section 6 of the Act for more than 2 decades since the passing of the said order nor is there any explanation for the failure of the petitioners to do so. The writ petition is blissfully silent as to the reason why the petitioners remained content with the notifications all these years even when the issue of a declaration under Section 6 of the Act had given them the cause of action to challenge the same. The legal position as to the approach to be adopted by the writ Courts while dealing with belated challenges to land acquisition proceedings is settled by a long line of decisions rendered by their lordships of the Supreme Court and those delivered by this Court from time to time. In Aflatoon and Ors. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors. (1975) 4 SCC 285 the challenge to the validity of the notification under Section 4 was delayed by 13 years. Dismissing the petition on the ground of delay and laches, the Court observed:

(2.) In Municipal Council, Ahmednagar and Anr. Vs. Shah Hyder Beig and Ors. (2002) 2 SCC 48, the petitioner challenged the acquisition proceedings after 21 years from the date of preliminary notification and 16 years from the date of the making of the award. The High Court interfered with the acquisition proceedings but setting aside the order passed by the High Court, the Supreme Court cautioned that the Courts ought to give effect to the doctrine of 'delay defeats equity'. Setting aside the view taken by the High Court, their lordships observed:

(3.) To the same effect are the decisions of the Supreme Court in Senjeevanagar Medical and Health Employees Cooperative Housing Society Vs. Mohd. Abdul Wahab and Ors.; (1996) 3 SCC 600; Municipal Corporation of Greater Bomaby Vs. Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd.; (1996) 11 SCC 501; Northern India Glass Industries Vs. Jaswant Singh and Ors.; (2003) 1 SCC 335, Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors.; (1998) 4 SCC 387, Vishwas Nagar Evacuees Plot Purchasers Association and Anr. Vs. Under Secretary, Delhi Administration and Ors.; (1990) 2 SCC 268).