M S DEWAN Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MORE than 20 years after the issue of a preliminary notification under section 4 and a Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the petitioner in this writ petition has assailed the validity of the acquisition proceedings in respect of a parcel of land measuring 66 Bighas and 6 Biswas situate in village Ladha Sarai, Delhi for the public purpose of Planned development of Delhi. Twoprimary grounds were urged before us in support of the said challenge. Firstly, it was contended that the delay in the completion of the acquisition proceedings vitiated the said proceedings. That contention was, however, given up by Mr. Vashisht, learned counsel for the petitioner, in the course of his submissions in the light of the decision rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in Roshanara Begum v. Union of india, 1996 I AD (Delhi) 6. We need not, therefore, dilate on that aspect of the matter. The second ground of challenge was, however, pursued by Mr. Vashisht who contended that the acquisition proceedings qua the land in question were unsupported by a preliminary notification in as much as the said notification had no application to evacuee land. Since the land owned by the petitioner was at one point of time evacuee land, the same, according to the learned counsel, was exempt from the purview of the notification, hence immune from acquisition. In as much as the Collector had included the said land in the declaration under Section 6 and the award made by him, he committed a mistake that required correction by this court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

(2.) ON behalf of the respondents, it was per contra argued by Mr. Poddar that not only was the writ petition barred by unexplained delay and laches, but the petitioner had no locus standi to maintain the same. Our attention was drawn by Mr. Poddar to an order passed by this Court on 9th March, 2005 whereby Mr. Vashisht, counsel for the petitioner, was directed to take instructions whether he had already sold the land and also whether and if so when had the petitioner paid the sale consideration for the same to the concerned department. No affidavit has, despite that direction, been filed by mr. Vashisht. The respondents had, however, filed an additional affidavit on 5th April, 2005 inter alia stating that the Land Acquisition Collector had issued the preliminary notification on 23. 1. 65 followed by declaration on 7. 12. 65 and an award on 16. 10. 89. It was further stated that the petitioner had not only participated in the award proceedings but had accepted the same as per his own showing and even got a reference under Section 18 of the Act made for the enhancement of the amount of compensation. It is further alleged that the petitioner had assigned his rights in the property in question in terms of an assignment deed dated 27th September, 2004 for a consideration of Rs. 50 lakhs and thereby lost all interest in the property including the right to challenge the acquisition proceedings. It was further stated that the petitioners had further transferred their right to third parties by executing deeds of Power of Attorney in their favour. Copies of some of such documents have been enclosed and marked Annexure R3/2 collectively. A suit for declaration and perm nent injunction for cancellation of the assignment deed was also pending but all these facts have been withheld by the petitioner from the court, despite a direction issued to him to state whether he has transferred the property in question and received the full consideration for the same.

(3.) WE have given our careful consideration to the submissions made at the bar and perused the record. The writ petition is, in our opinion, barred by inordinate and unexplained delay and laches. The preliminary notification as seen earlier was issued as early as on 23. 1. 65. A final declaration under Section 6 was also issued on 7. 12. 65. There is no explanation as to why the petitioner slept over the matter for more than two decades before filing this petition. The legal position regarding the approach to be adopted in cases challenging land acquisition proceedings has been settled by a long line of decisions of the Supreme Court and that of this Court. The decisions emphasize the need for the petitioner to act diligently and to approach the writ court in good time. Far from showing any diligence, the petitioner has been totally remiss in agitating the matter at the appropriate stage. He has allowed the proceedings to attain finality without raising a little finger against the same. In Aflatoon and Ors. v. Lt. Governor of delhi and Ors. , AIR 1974 SC 2077, the declaration under Section 6 was issued in the year 1966 whereas the writ petition was filed in the year 1972. The Supreme Court considered this delay to be sufficient to warrant dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of laches. The Court held that if there was any defect in the notification under Section 4 issued as early as in the year 1959 and a declaration under Section 6 was issued in 1966, there was no reason why the petitioners should have waited till the year 1972 to come to the Court. It was not, declared the court, permissible for the petitioners to sit on the fence, allow the Government to complete the acquisition proceedings on the basis of notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act and then attack the same on grounds which were available to them when the notification was published. The following passage is in this regard instructive :-